From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Possible index issue on 9.5 slave |
Date: | 2014-06-19 03:44:31 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQsJZzBLC9oaHU5ETh2tpU9T-qg0GFHcSnYCJ_Tg8VTsQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Still, it should be possible to
>> determine if that's the problem using btreecheck.
>
> Does btreecheck attempt to verify that the sort ordering of the index
> matches the comparison behavior of the datatype? That would (in general)
> require calling user-defined code, which seems like probably a pretty
> bad idea for the purposes btreecheck is being advertised for.
Yes, it does, but I see no alternative for a general-purpose tool, and
the fact that it is general purpose is of considerable value. I have
more or less invented my own weird index scans.
I assume you're referring to the field-verification of indexes use
case, which is not an immediate goal of btreecheck, even though it's
an important goal that there has already been some discussion of.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-19 03:45:35 | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-19 03:42:30 | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |