Re: Enhanced rmgr desc routines test !has_image, not has_data

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)