Horton

Re: Bugs in TOAST handling, OID assignment and redo recovery

Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-12T13:12:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > I have not really checked this thread in details, but one thing that
> > strikes me is that it would be rather easy to add a TAP test based on
> > the initial script that Pavan has sent.  Would that be worth testing
> > cycles or not?
>
> I doubt it --- that test is so specialized that it'd be unlikely to
> catch any other bug.
>
>
I agree; it's not worth adding a TAP test except may be as a demonstration
to write future tests for catching such issues. This was a very specialised
test case written after getting a full grasp on the bug. And it just tests
the thing that I knew is broken based on code reading. Also, with OID
duplicate issue fixed, hitting more bugs in this area is going to be even
more difficult.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 
 Pavan Deolasee                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Ignore nextOid when replaying an ONLINE checkpoint.

  2. Do not select new object OIDs that match recently-dead entries.