| 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: | 2018-08-28 14:03:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LaNY=VAx+2omadp4ays9_=PUgsnYeSeAECidNyNX3RCQ@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.
>
> Amit?
>
I will look into it tomorrow, hope that's okay.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-28 14:09:01 | Re: Why hash OIDs? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-28 13:39:46 | Re: typcache.c typos |