Re: pg_verify_checksums failure with hash indexes

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums failure with hash indexes
Date: 2018-09-03 04:51:12
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+SeLzyNdtsO381OrQXoj7Kx3cDBfiKeGuiKQcBzZ-0ow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:43 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > The files in question correspond to
> >
> > hash_i4_index
> > hash_name_index
> > hash_txt_index
>
> The hash index code has been largely refactored in v10, so I would
> imagine that you can see the problem as well there.
>
> [... digging digging ...]
>
> And indeed I can see the problem in 10 as well with my own pg_checksums,
> and I can see hash_f8_index with a problem on top of what Peter has
> reported.
>

AFAICS, this problem exists in 9.6 and prior branches as well,
although, I can't test it. I am not sure whether we need to backpatch
this beyond 10 (where hash indexes are WAL logged) as prior to that
hash-indexes are anyway not-reliable. What's your opinion?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rafia Sabih 2018-09-03 04:55:03 Re: Hint to set owner for tablespace directory
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-09-03 04:05:40 Re: Proposal for disk quota feature