| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Run pg_amcheck in 002_pg_upgrade.pl and 027_stream_regress.pl? |
| Date: | 2022-04-05 12:54:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3031fc19-7540-b8be-e34b-835e6fc4493e@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/3/22 22:10, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 11:53 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> We've had bugs in pg_upgrade where post-upgrade xid horizons weren't correctly
>> set. We've had bugs were indexes were corrupted during replay.
>>
>> The latter can be caught by wal_consistency_checking - but that's pretty
>> expensive.
>>
>> It seems $subject would have a chance of catching some of these bugs, as well
>> as exposing amcheck to a database with a bit more varied content?
> I thought that Andrew Dunstan (CC'd) had a BF animal that did this
> setup. But I'm not sure if that ever ended up happening.
I don't think any of my BF animals do anything special in this area.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2022-04-05 12:56:02 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-05 12:44:27 | Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only? |