| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Date: | 2021-10-05 16:41:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobJnZE6WMw1y+N9ts36nsbL_un0CYB_khieg8rOa86RBw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | Postg메이저 토토 사이트SQL : Postg메이저 토토 사이트SQL 메일 링리스트 : 2021-10-05 이후 PGSQL-BUGS 16:41 pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 7:10 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> All of the underlying errors are cases that were clearly intended to
> catch user error -- every single one. But apparently pg_amcheck is
> incapable of error, by definition. Like HAL 9000.
After some thought, I agree with the idea that pg_amcheck ought to
skip relations that can't be expected to be valid -- which includes
both unlogged relations while in recovery, and also invalid indexes
left behind by failed index builds. Otherwise it can only find
non-problems, which we don't want to do.
But this comment seems like mockery to me, and I don't like that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-05 16:58:24 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-05 12:26:28 | Re: Extension relocation vs. schema qualification |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-10-05 16:56:12 | Re: extensible options syntax for replication parser? |
| Previous Message | Amul Sul | 2021-10-05 16:41:10 | Re: using an end-of-recovery record in all cases |