| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Date: | 2016-05-18 22:42:16 |
| Message-ID: | 15161.1463611336@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-05-18 18:25:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes, I've been wondering that too. VACUUM is not meant as a corruption
>> checker, and should not be made into one, so what is the point of this
>> flag exactly?
> Well, so far a VACUUM FREEZE (or just setting vacuum_freeze_table_age =
> 0) verified the correctness of the visibility map; and that found a
> number of bugs. Now visibilitymap grew additional responsibilities,
> with a noticeable risk of data eating bugs, and there's no way to verify
> whether visibilitymap's frozen bits are set correctly.
Meh. I'm not sure we should grow a rather half-baked feature we'll never
be able to remove as a substitute for a separate sanity checker. The
latter is really the right place for this kind of thing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-18 22:43:48 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-18 22:34:36 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |