Re: Bugs in TOAST handling, OID assignment and redo recovery

From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bugs in TOAST handling, OID assignment and redo recovery
Date: 2018-04-12 13:12:46
Message-ID: CABOikdMPWuQsTo0J0xqa4Foz1i1RnK_-a413EpdpTS=2PWFipA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > I have not really checked this thread in details, but one thing that
> > strikes me is that it would be rather easy to add a TAP test based on
> > the initial script that Pavan has sent. Would that be worth testing
> > cycles or not?
>
> I doubt it --- that test is so specialized that it'd be unlikely to
> catch any other bug.
>
>
I agree; it's not worth adding a TAP test except may be as a demonstration
to write future tests for catching such issues. This was a very specialised
test case written after getting a full grasp on the bug. And it just tests
the thing that I knew is broken based on code reading. Also, with OID
duplicate issue fixed, hitting more bugs in this area is going to be even
more difficult.

Thanks,
Pavan

--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-04-12 13:17:33 Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-04-12 13:12:31 Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11