| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) |
| Date: | 2016-05-10 10:28:57 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j+WUeXbYVHTLoF8QR-xogOuOY2mr0p0oMnRzdt4OY3tNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 May 2016 at 09:05, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Is anybody ready with a good defense for SatisfiesToast not doing any
> actual liveliness checks?
>
I provided a patch earlier that rechecks the OID fetched from a toast chunk
matches the OID requested.
I didn't commit it, I just used it to check the patch which changed btree
vacuum replay.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| toast_recheck.v1.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2016-05-10 10:40:23 | Re: Declarative partitioning |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-05-10 08:50:39 | Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution |