On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I guess if you or another committer spends some time writing a test
> framework that is useful and that you can trust, I'm sure many people
> will add to it. That'll be true for any of the major/complex areas not
> covered by public test suites
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, there's more than one bug here :-(. Heikki found one, but the
>> code is also attaching the buffer indicator to the wrong rdata entry
>> --- the record header, not the workspace, is what gets suppressed
>> if the full page is logged.
> I saw t
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm working on this now.
Thanks to you and Heikki for fixing this while I worked around it.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, there's more than one bug here :-(. Heikki found one, but the
> code is also attaching the buffer indicator to the wrong rdata entry
> --- the record header, not the workspace, is what gets suppressed
> if the full page is logged.
I saw that, but I figured it should be atta
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 15:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I've pointed out before that the regression tests are not particularly
> >> meant to provide an exhaustive test of WAL recovery. In this particular
> >> case, so f
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've pointed out before that the regression tests are not particularly
>> meant to provide an exhaustive test of WAL recovery. In this particular
>> case, so far as I can tell the bug is only observable with
>> full_page_
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> This means that the WAL replay of that record type has never been tested
> >> correctly :-(.
>
> > This must have been added after mid-Feb this year. I n
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> This means that the WAL replay of that record type has never been tested
>> correctly :-(.
> This must have been added after mid-Feb this year. I notice there are a
> few places where functionality is tested aga
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, the entire thing is misdesigned from the get-go. AFAICS
>> it shouldn't even have its own WAL record type --- it should be using
>> log_newpage().
> Yeah, that would be even simpler. The WAL records it currenctly writes
> are more compact
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> This means that the WAL replay of that record type has never been tested
>> correctly :-(. Looking closer at writeListPage(), why does it always
>> include 'workspace' in the WAL record, even if a full-page-image is
>> taken? It's not used for anythi
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> This means that the WAL replay of that record type has never been tested
> correctly :-(. Looking closer at writeListPage(), why does it always
> include 'workspace' in the WAL record, even if a full-page-image is
> taken? It's not used for anything the the redo functi
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > In recovery of GIN operations using CVS HEAD I see consistently
> >
> > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((bool) ((spcNode) != ((Oid) 0", File:
> > "tablespace.c", Line: 116)
> >
> > Looking at code, "new list page
Simon Riggs wrote:
> In recovery of GIN operations using CVS HEAD I see consistently
>
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((bool) ((spcNode) != ((Oid) 0", File:
> "tablespace.c", Line: 116)
>
> Looking at code, "new list page" WAL record is a GIN record type and at
> line 115 in gin/ginfast.c I see t
In recovery of GIN operations using CVS HEAD I see consistently
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((bool) ((spcNode) != ((Oid) 0", File:
"tablespace.c", Line: 116)
Looking at code, "new list page" WAL record is a GIN record type and at
line 115 in gin/ginfast.c I see that the value of the node is unse
14 matches
Mail list logo
