> 8 авг. 2020 г., в 23:14, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> I pushed a cleaned up version of this patch just now. I added some
> commentary about this canonical example in header comments for the new
> function.
Thanks for working on this!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:59 PM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> But having complete solution with no false positives seems much better.
Agreed. I know that you didn't pursue this for no reason -- having the
check available makes bt_check_index() a lot more valuable in
practice. It detects what is actu
> 6 авг. 2020 г., в 21:38, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:50 PM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>> Sounds great! Thanks!
>
> I'm afraid that there is another problem, this time with
> btree_xlog_split(). It's possible to get false positives when running
> the new test cont
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:50 PM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> Sounds great! Thanks!
I'm afraid that there is another problem, this time with
btree_xlog_split(). It's possible to get false positives when running
the new test continually on a standby. You can see this by running
verification on a stand
> 6 авг. 2020 г., в 04:25, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> * Added _bt_checkpage() calls for buffers, as is standard practice in nbtree.
>
> * Added protection against locking the same page a second time in the
> event of a faulty sibling link -- we should avoid a self-deadlock in
> the event
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:33 AM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> BTW, reviewing this patch again I cannot understand why we verify link
> coherence only on leaf level but not for internal pages?
> I do not see any actual problems here.
Well, I thought that it might be a good idea to limit it to the lea
> 4 авг. 2020 г., в 03:44, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:46 AM Andrey M. Borodin
> wrote:
>> In this thread [0] we decided that lock coupling is necessary for
>> btree_xlog_unlink_page().
>> So, maybe let's revive this patch?
>
> Yes, let's do that. Can you resu
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:46 AM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> In this thread [0] we decided that lock coupling is necessary for
> btree_xlog_unlink_page().
> So, maybe let's revive this patch?
Yes, let's do that. Can you resubmit it, please?
Peter Geoghegan
Hi!
> 23 янв. 2020 г., в 00:59, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I tried to come up with a specific example of how this could be
>> unsafe, but my explanation was all over the place (this could have had
>> something to do with it being Fr
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I tried to come up with a specific example of how this could be
> unsafe, but my explanation was all over the place (this could have had
> something to do with it being Friday evening). Even still, it's up to
> the patch to justify why it's
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:11 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I find this argument convincing. I'll try to get this committed soon.
>
> While you could have used bt_index_parent_check() or heapallindexed to
> detect the issue, those two options are a lot more expensive (plus the
> former option won't w
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:47 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > 11 янв. 2020 г., в 7:49, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
> > I'm curious why Andrey's corruption problems were not detected by the
> > cross-page amcheck test, though. We compare the first non-pivot tuple
> > on the right sibling leaf page wit
> 14 янв. 2020 г., в 9:47, Andrey Borodin написал(а):
>
> Page updates may be lost due to bug in backup software with incremental
> backups, bug in storage layer of Aurora-style system, bug in page cache,
> incorrect
> fsync error handling, bug in ssd firmware etc. And our data checksums do
Hi Peter! Sorry for answering so long.
> 11 янв. 2020 г., в 7:49, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> I'm curious why Andrey's corruption problems were not detected by the
> cross-page amcheck test, though. We compare the first non-pivot tuple
> on the right sibling leaf page with the last one on th
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 03:49:40PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:25 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
Understood. Is that a reason to not commit of this patch now, though?
It could use some polishing. Are you interested in committing it?
Not really - as a CFM I was trying to
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:25 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Understood. Is that a reason to not commit of this patch now, though?
It could use some polishing. Are you interested in committing it?
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 06:49:33PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 5:45 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
Peter, any opinion on this proposed amcheck patch? In the other thread
[1] you seemed to agree this is worth checking, and Alvaro's proposal to
make this check optional seems lik
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 5:45 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Peter, any opinion on this proposed amcheck patch? In the other thread
> [1] you seemed to agree this is worth checking, and Alvaro's proposal to
> make this check optional seems like a reasonable compromise with respect
> to the locking.
It's
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:16:12AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2019-Sep-12, Andrey Borodin wrote:
This patch violates one of amcheck design principles: current code
does not ever take more than one page lock. I do not know: should we
hold this rule or should we use more deep check?
The ch
On 2019-Sep-12, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> This patch violates one of amcheck design principles: current code
> does not ever take more than one page lock. I do not know: should we
> hold this rule or should we use more deep check?
The check does seem worthwhile to me.
As far as I know, in btree yo
Hi!
This is a thread to discuss amcheck feature started in other thread[0].
Currently amcheck is scanning every B-tree level. If verification is done with
ShareLock - amcheck will test that each page leftlink is pointing to page with
rightlink backwards.
This is important invariant, in our expe
21 matches
Mail list logo
