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: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya.himanshu@gmail.com>, Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2023-03-27T17:43:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:06 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:34 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, let me spend some more time on this and I'll post a patch (or
> > patches) in a bit.
>
> All right, here are some more fixups.

It looks like e88754a1965c0f40a723e6e46d670cacda9e19bd make skink
happy (although Peter Geoghegan has spotted a problem with it, see the
thread that begins with the commit email) so I went ahead and
committed these fixups. Hopefully that won't again make the buildfarm
unhappy, but I guess we'll see.

-- 
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.