Horton

Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations

Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-10-11T18:37:15Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers 

> On Oct 11, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> 
> I definitely think that it warrants a warning box. This is a huge
> practical difference.
> 
> Note that I'm talking about a standard thing, which there are
> certainly a dozen or more examples of in the docs already. Just grep
> for "<warning> </warning>" tags to see the existing warning boxes.

Yes, sure, I know they exist.  It's just that I have a vague recollection of a discussion on -hackers about whether we should be using them so much.

The documentation for contrib/amcheck has a paragraph but not a warning box.  Should that be changed also?

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Remove unstable pg_amcheck tests.

  2. pg_amcheck: avoid unhelpful verification attempts.

  3. amcheck: Skip unlogged relations in Hot Standby.

  4. amcheck: Skip unlogged relations during recovery.