| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2017-02-06 02:46:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn8evY7HOHY32zKupj5JMuRC01z2vzJAH3GKgXxhidW8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not sure that just because the bug wasn't reported by a user, makes it
> any less critical. As Tomas pointed down thread, the nature of the bug is
> such that the users may not discover it very easily, but that doesn't mean
> it couldn't be affecting them all the time. We can now correlate many past
> reports of index corruption to this bug, but we don't have evidence to prove
> that. Lack of any good tool or built-in checks probably makes it even
> harder.
I think that we need to make an automated checker tool a requirement
for very complicated development projects in the future. We're behind
here.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-06 02:47:59 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-02-06 02:45:48 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |