| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX backend filtering |
| Date: | 2021-03-15 19:37:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_YApiKs3LTq0Yjdc1DG+ojPSEwtgiiaj0NVFS0aRTXY7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:32 AM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> We do test corrupt relations. We intentionally corrupt the pages within corrupted heap tables to check that they get reported as corrupt. (See src/bin/pg_amcheck/t/004_verify_heapam.pl)
I disagree. You're testing a modified version of the pages in OS
cache, which is very likely to be different from real world
corruption. Those usually end up with a discrepancy between storage
and OS cache and this scenario isn't tested nor documented.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-15 19:45:38 | Re: EXPLAIN/EXPLAIN ANALYZE REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-03-15 19:35:52 | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |