Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:13 PM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:05 PM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, you are correct standby stopped with a following error:
>>>
>>> FATAL: inconsistent page found, rel 1663/13260/16390, forknum 0, blkno 0
>>> CONTEXT: WAL redo at 0/3002510 for Heap/DELETE: off 6 KEYS_UPDATED
>>> LOG: startup process (PID 22791) exited with exit code 1
>>> LOG: terminating any other active server processes
>>> LOG: database system is shut down
>>>
>>> I have tested warm standby replication setup using attached script. Without
>>> wal_consistency_checking setting, it works fine & data from master to standby is
>>> replicated as expected, if this guaranty is enough then I think could skip this
>>> error from wal consistent check for such deleted tuple (I guess option
>>> b that you have suggested), thoughts?
>>
>> I tried to mask ctid.ip_blkid if it is set to InvalidBlockId with
>> following change in heap_mask:
>>
>
> Your change appears fine to me. I think one can set both block number
> and offset as we do for HeapTupleHeaderIsSpeculative, but the way you
> have done it looks good to me. Kindly include it in the next version
> of your patch by adding the missing comment.
>

Thanks for the confirmation, updated patch attached.

Regards,
Amul