From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: btree_gist valgrind warnings about uninitialized memory |
Date: | 2014-06-04 23:25:37 |
Message-ID: | 20140604232537.GP785@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-14 12:20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-05-14 10:07:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think that's an OK restriction as long as we warn people about it
> >> (you could update a replication pair as long as you shut them both
> >> down cleanly at the same time, right?). Can the WAL replay routine
> >> be made to detect incompatible records?
>
> > We could just bump the wal version. Somewhat surprisingly that works if
> > both nodes are shutdown cleanly (primary first)... But the errors about
> > it are really ugly (will moan about unusable checkpoints), so it's
> > probably not a good idea. Especially as it'll make it an issue for all
> > users, not just the ones creating spgist indexes.
>
> Yeah, I don't think we want to bump the WAL version code post-beta1.
>
> Probably better to assign the modified spgist record a new xl_info ID
> number, so that a beta1 slave would throw an error for it.
Since that ship has now sailed...? It's imo bad form to release a new
version that overwrites the stack and heap, even if we can't see a
concrete danger.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-04 23:28:26 | Re: Sigh, we need an initdb |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-04 23:24:14 | slotname vs slot_name |