Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date: 2017-11-29 05:38:19
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQXqnN2jNR62wuV74iKdgHafCw8bM7E0b7bORZk6MdnnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I should point out that I shipped virtually the same code yesterday,
> as v1.1 of the Github version of amcheck (also known as amcheck_next).
> Early adopters will be able to use this new "heapallindexed"
> functionality in the next few days, once packages become available for
> the apt and yum community repos. Just as before, the Github version
> will work on versions of Postgres >= 9.4.
>
> This seems like good timing on my part, because we know that this new
> "heapallindexed" verification will detect the "freeze the dead" bugs
> that the next point release is set to have fixes for -- that is
> actually kind of how one of the bugs was found [1]. We may even want
> to advertise the available of this check within amcheck_next, in the
> release notes for the next Postgres point release.

My apologies for slacking here. I would still welcome some regression
tests to stress the bloom API you are proposing! For now I am moving
this patch to next CF.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-29 05:46:33 Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Restricting pg_rewind to data/wal dirs
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-29 05:35:51 Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++