Re: Hash Indexes

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash Indexes
Date: 2016-12-12 04:43:04
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+WxAe7FNkPL_nZCg3-ntV8OmekihPYdSH=5OwUq7aXUQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> With the latest HASH WAL patch applied, I get different but apparently
> related errors
>
> 41993 UPDATE XX002 2016-12-05 22:28:45.333 PST:ERROR: index "foo_index_idx"
> contains corrupted page at block 27602
> 41993 UPDATE XX002 2016-12-05 22:28:45.333 PST:HINT: Please REINDEX it.
> 41993 UPDATE XX002 2016-12-05 22:28:45.333 PST:STATEMENT: update foo set
> count=count+1 where index=$1
>

This is not the problem of WAL patch per se. It should be fixed with
the hash index bug fix patch I sent upthread. However, after the bug
fix patch, WAL patch needs to be rebased which I will do and send it
after verification. In the meantime, it would be great if you can
verify the fix posted.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-12-12 04:52:50 Re: jsonb problematic operators
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2016-12-12 04:41:08 Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing and Tuple Deforming (including JIT)