| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rework SLRU I/O errors handle |
| Date: | 2026-03-13 14:32:10 |
| Message-ID: | f2d1846e-04ac-43f5-9fdb-80d8e7daf49d@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/03/2026 12:51, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06/03/2026 19:08, Maxim Orlov wrote:
>> I don't know what's happening with my mail, but I haven't
>> received the previous letters.
>>
>> Anyway, v4 looks good to me.
>> Perhaps the extra double line following clog_errdetail_for_io_error
>> is unnecessary? But as always, to your taste.
>
> Thanks. I did one more iteration on this: I realized that the error we
> now printed for errors on pg_multixact/members always printed the
> failing offset, whereas before this patch we usually printed the failing
> *multixid* that the member is part of. Printing the multixid might
> actually be more useful; the offset can more easily be deduced from the
> segment filename and physical offset that is printed anyway, but it's
> harder to know which multixid it belongs to. This printing the
> originating multixid seems useful. If things go badly wrong and you need
> to do manual debugging of a corrupted database, the multixid can more
> easily be compared with the xmax in the heap and with pg_waldump output,
> for example.
>
> We can print both, per attached, which is even better. This is perhaps
> overkill, but then again, if you hit an error like this, you really
> appreciate any extra information you can get.
I hear no objections, so committed that. Thanks!
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-03-13 14:38:57 | Re: [PATCH] Docs: clarify default values of EXPLAIN BUFFERS and SERIALIZE |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-03-13 14:05:13 | Re: Speed up COPY FROM text/CSV parsing using SIMD |