Re: Bug in amcheck?

From: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org, aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in amcheck?
Date: 2025-11-18 22:19:00
Message-ID: CADzfLwW9-SH8zJrZ47QQkOspzm1R5kK7WgM_=oUyFOz=yfkagw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello!

> Originally I investigated the customer's problem with PG16. And have
> reproduced it for pg16,. I checked that relevant amcheck code was not
> changed since pg16, so I thought that the problem takes place for all
> Postgres versions. But looks like it is not true.

I think it is still broken, but with less probability.
Have you tried injection points on v16? Such a test case will make
things much more clear.

Also, I added Alexander to CC (he is author of bt_child_highkey_check)
- maybe the issue is easily understandable for him.

Best regards,
Mikhail.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2025-11-18 22:37:39 Re: [PATCH] Fixed creation of empty .log files during log rotation
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-11-18 22:15:02 Re: GUC thread-safety approaches