Horton

Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam()

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya.himanshu@gmail.com>, Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2023-03-23T17:06:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:42 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmph. I didn't think very hard about that code and just assumed
> Himanshu had tested it. I don't have convenient access to a Big-endian
> test machine myself. Are you able to check whether using 0x00010019
> unconditionally works?

Oh, I see now you already pushed a fix. Thanks.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. amcheck: Generalize one of the recently-added update chain checks.

  2. amcheck: Tighten up validation of redirect line pointers.

  3. amcheck: Fix verify_heapam for tuples where xmin or xmax is 0.

  4. amcheck: Fix a few bugs in new update chain validation.

  5. Fix new test case to work on (some?) big-endian architectures.

  6. Don't test HEAP_XMAX_INVALID when freezing xmax.