| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Enhanced rmgr desc routines test !has_image, not has_data |
| Date: | 2023-04-19 06:10:28 |
| Message-ID: | ZD+F1HYljodRr6eb@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 02:36:40PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> This isn't just a theoretical issue. Currently, we won't display
> detailed descriptions of block data whenever wal_consistency_checking
> happens to be in use. At least for those records with relevant block
> data available to summarize that also happen to have an FPI that the
> REDO routine isn't supposed to apply (i.e. an FPI that is included in
> the record purely so that verifyBackupPageConsistency can verify that
> the REDO routine produces a matching image).
Yeah, I agree that your suggestion is more useful for debugging when a
record includes both a block image and some data associated to it.
So, +1.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kumar, Sachin | 2023-04-19 06:21:58 | RE: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Miroslav Bendik | 2023-04-19 05:25:00 | Re: Incremental sort for access method with ordered scan support (amcanorderbyop) |