From: | Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya(dot)himanshu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() |
Date: | 2022-11-17 16:03:17 |
Message-ID: | CAPF61jCE5VVgQ6yYoJppprRU81xGr3d9Vq00OFanoS3_UT9N-Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:32 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, it is
> > possible that successor[x] = successor[x'] since the page might be
> corrupted
> > and we haven't checked otherwise.
> >
> > predecessor[y] = x means that successor[x] = y but in addition we've
> > checked that y is sane, and that x.xmax=y.xmin. If there are multiple
> > tuples for which these conditions hold, we've issued complaints about
> > all but one and entered the last into the predecessor array.
>
> As shown by the isolationtester test I just posted, this doesn't quite work
> right now. Probably fixable.
>
> I don't think we can follow non-HOT ctid chains if they're older than the
> xmin
> horizon, including all cases of xmin being frozen. There's just nothing
> guaranteeing that the tuples are actually "related".
>
> I understand the problem with frozen tuples but don't understand the
concern with non-HOT chains,
could you please help with some explanation around it?
--
Regards,
Himanshu Upadhyaya
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-11-17 16:04:52 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
Previous Message | David Christensen | 2022-11-17 16:02:05 | Re: Moving forward with TDE |