Hi Tomas,
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 03/31/2017 06:01 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>>
>>
>> It seems like the latest patch(v4) shared by Tomas upthread is an
>> empty patch. If I am not wrong, please share the correct patch.
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> OMG, this is the second
On 03/31/2017 06:01 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
It seems like the latest patch(v4) shared by Tomas upthread is an
empty patch. If I am not wrong, please share the correct patch.
Thanks.
OMG, this is the second time I managed to generate an empty patch. I
really need to learn not to do that ..
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
>
> On 03/24/2017 04:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> On 3/17/17 18:35, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I'm struggling to find a good way to share code between
bt_page_items(t
On 03/24/2017 04:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/17/17 18:35, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 03/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I'm struggling to find a good way to share code between
bt_page_items(text, int4) and bt_page_items(bytea).
If we do it via the SQL route, as I had suggested,
On 3/17/17 18:35, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I'm struggling to find a good way to share code between
>> bt_page_items(text, int4) and bt_page_items(bytea).
>>
>> If we do it via the SQL route, as I had suggested, it makes the
>> extension non-relocatabl
Hi,
On 03/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I'm struggling to find a good way to share code between
bt_page_items(text, int4) and bt_page_items(bytea).
If we do it via the SQL route, as I had suggested, it makes the
extension non-relocatable, and it will also create a bit of a mess
duri
I'm struggling to find a good way to share code between
bt_page_items(text, int4) and bt_page_items(bytea).
If we do it via the SQL route, as I had suggested, it makes the
extension non-relocatable, and it will also create a bit of a mess
during upgrades.
If doing it in C, it will be a bit tricky
I have committed the page_checksum function, will work on the bt stuff next.
I left in the superuser check, because I was not confident how well
pg_checksum_page() would handle messed up data.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remo
On Mar 14, 2017 5:37 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote:
Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Yes. But, as i said earlier I am getting negative checksum value for
> page_header as well. Isn't that wrong. For eg. When I debug the
> following query, i could pd_checksum value as '40074' in gdb where
> page_header show
Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Yes. But, as i said earlier I am getting negative checksum value for
> page_header as well. Isn't that wrong. For eg. When I debug the
> following query, i could pd_checksum value as '40074' in gdb where
> page_header shows it as '-25462'.
Yes; the point is that this is a
Hi,
>
>> 2) It seems like you have choosen wrong datatype for page_checksum. I
>> am getting negative checksum value when trying to run below query. I
>> think the return type for the SQL function page_checksum should be
>> 'integer' instead of 'smallint'.
>>
>> postgres=# SELECT page_checksum(get
On 03/13/2017 06:49 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
Hi,
I had a look into this patch and would like to share some of my review
comments that requires author's attention.
1) The comment for page_checksum() needs to be corrected. It seems
like it has been copied from page_header and not edited it furt
Hi,
I had a look into this patch and would like to share some of my review
comments that requires author's attention.
1) The comment for page_checksum() needs to be corrected. It seems
like it has been copied from page_header and not edited it further.
/*
* page_header
*
* Allows inspection o
On 3/6/17 16:33, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I think it would be better not to maintain so much duplicate code
>> between bt_page_items(text, int) and bt_page_items(bytea). How about
>> just redefining bt_page_items(text, int) as an SQL-language function
>> calling bt_page_items(get_raw_page($1, $2))?
On 03/06/2017 10:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/3/17 09:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Attached is v2, fixing both issues.
I wonder if
+ bytea *raw_page = PG_GETARG_BYTEA_P(0);
+ uargs->page = VARDATA(raw_page);
is expected to work reliably, without copying the argument to a
diff
On 3/3/17 09:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Attached is v2, fixing both issues.
I wonder if
+ bytea *raw_page = PG_GETARG_BYTEA_P(0);
+ uargs->page = VARDATA(raw_page);
is expected to work reliably, without copying the argument to a
different memory context.
I think it would be better
On 3/4/17 12:39, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Can we have a test case for page_checksum(), or is that too difficult to
>> get running deterministicly?
>
> I'm not sure it can be made deterministic. Certainly not on heap pages,
> because then it'd be susceptible to xmin/xmax changes, but we have other
On 03/04/2017 02:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/3/17 09:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Damn. In my defense, the patch was originally created for an older
PostgreSQL version (to investigate issue on a production system), which
used that approach to building values. Should have notice it, though.
A
On 3/3/17 09:03, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Damn. In my defense, the patch was originally created for an older
> PostgreSQL version (to investigate issue on a production system), which
> used that approach to building values. Should have notice it, though.
>
> Attached is v2, fixing both issues.
Can
On 03/03/2017 05:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
BTW I've noticed the pageinspect version is 1.6, but we only have
pageinspect--1.5.sql (and upgrade script to 1.6). Not sure that's entirely
intentional?
Actually, that's the New Way. See 40b449ae
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> BTW I've noticed the pageinspect version is 1.6, but we only have
> pageinspect--1.5.sql (and upgrade script to 1.6). Not sure that's entirely
> intentional?
Actually, that's the New Way. See 40b449ae84dcf71177d7749a7b0c582b64dc15f0.
+exter
Hi,
while investigating some checksum-related issues, I needed to perform
some forensics on a copy of a btree page (taken from another instance
using 'dd').
But I've ran into two pageinspect limitations, hopefully addressed by
this patch:
1) bt_page_items(bytea) not defined
We have heap_p
22 matches
Mail list logo
