| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Date: | 2016-06-06 20:57:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS80MgcJ0jMaJbaxwT0+tKCTmRuPMUXBDxTmEtokPEmAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> We need a read-only utility which checks that the system is in a correct
>> and valid state. There are a few of those which have been built for
>> different pieces, I believe, and we really should have one for the
>> visibility map, but I don't think it makes sense to imply in any way
>> that VACUUM can or should be used for that.
>
> Meh. This is vacuum behaviour that *has existed* up to this point. You
> essentially removed it. Sure, I'm all for adding a verification
> tool. But that's just pie in the skie at this point. We have a complex,
> data loss threatening feature, which just about nobody can verify at
> this point. That's crazy.
FWIW, I agree with the general sentiment. Building a stress-testing
suite would have been a good idea. In general, testability is a design
goal that I'd be willing to give up other things for.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-06 21:00:19 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-06 20:46:10 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |