Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
Date: 2020-04-22 16:22:31
Message-ID: CAH2-WzmPJgTX7tcohMjzWPad71+uCYReivAnnKKKk+EA4nGY_A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:54 AM Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Proposed fix is attached. Spotted by Konstantin Knizhnik,
> reproduction case and fix from me.

I wonder if we should fix btree_xlog_unlink_page() instead of amcheck.
We already know that its failure to be totally consistent with the
primary causes problems for backwards scans -- this problem can be
fixed at the same time:

https://postgr.es/m/CANtu0ohkR-evAWbpzJu54V8eCOtqjJyYp3PQ_SGoBTRGXWhWRw@mail.gmail.com

We'd probably still use your patch for the backbranches if we went this way.

What do you think?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2020-04-22 16:27:35 Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2020-04-22 16:21:40 Re: backup manifests