Re: amcheck verification for GiST

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: amcheck verification for GiST
Date: 2019-11-28 03:57:10
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:10:20PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Why is this not a problem for the new amcheck checks? Maybe this is a
> very naive question. I don't claim to be a GiST expert.

This thread did not receive any updates after a couple of months, and
visibly input was waited from Andrey, so I am marking it as returned
with feedback in the CF. Please feel free to update the CF entry or
register a new entry once you have dealt with the comments from Peter

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message nuko yokohama 2019-11-28 04:00:05 To Suggest a "DROP INCREMENTAL MATERIALIZED VIEW" in psql, but the syntax error when you run.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-28 03:53:34 Re: Add a GUC variable that control logical replication