Horton

Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2010-12-01T02:10:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. New feature:

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Does the current code cope with the corruption?
>
> It's not corruption, but "intended degradation". Yes, the current code copes
> with it, that's how GiST survives a crash. However, even with the current
> code, VACUUM will nag if it finds any invalid tuples with this message:
>
> ereport(NOTICE,
>        (errmsg("index \"%s\" needs VACUUM FULL or REINDEX to finish crash
> recovery",
>
> That's harmless, in the sense that all scans and inserts work fine, but
> scans might need to do more work than if the invalid tuple wasn't there.
>
> I don't think we need to go out of our way to support such degraded indexes
> in 9.1. If you see such notices in your logs, you should REINDEX anyway,
> before of after pg_upgrade. Let's just make sure that you get a reasonable
> error message in 9.1 if a scan or insert encounters such a tuple.

I just don't want to take a risk of giving people unexpected wrong
answers.  It's not clear to me whether that's a risk here or not.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company