From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage |
Date: | 2017-09-07 02:19:22 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqR-YA2ah7K=ELeOkMcra1JdWRLQT0kO-9z+YwCWvM0RVA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I too tend to think that any users who use this masking facility would
> know to expect to get these failures on upgraded clusters with invalid
> pd_lower in meta pages.
Yes, I don't think that an optimization reducing WAL that impacts all
users should be stopped by a small set of users who use an option for
development purposes.
> (PS: I wonder if it is reasonable to allow configuring the error level
> used when a masking failure occurs? Currently, checkXLogConsistency()
> will abort the process (FATAL))
It definitely is worth it in my opinion, perhaps with an on/off switch
to trigger a warning instead. The reason why we use FATAL now is to
trigger more easily red flags for any potential buildfarm runs: a
startup process facing FATAL takes down the standby.
>> Perhaps we should document this point for wal_consistency_check?
>
> Do you mean permanently under wal_consistency_check parameter
> documentation or in the release notes under incompatibilities for the
> affected index types?
Under the parameter itself, in the spirit of a don't-do-that from an
upgraded instance.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-07 02:26:36 | Re: A design for amcheck heapam verification |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-07 02:14:14 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test |