Horton

Re: Corrupted btree index on HEAD because of covering indexes

Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2018-04-20T14:18:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

>> Should we use BTreeInnerTupleGetDownLink() as soon as we use
>> BTreeInnerTupleSetDownLink() for setting this?
>> Or even invent BTreeInnerTupleDownLinkIsValid() macro?
> I am not sure. Here we actually store UP link - to top parent to remove. I'm 
> afraid using BTreeInnerTupleGetDownLink/BTreeInnerTupleSetDownLink could cause a 
> confusion, in other hand, introducing 
> TreeInnerTupleGetUpLink/BTreeInnerTupleSetUpLink seems over-engineering
> 

After close look I change my opinion. To have a clean code it's much better to 
have new pair get/set macroses specialy to manage link to top pare during page 
deletion. This removes last naked usage of 
ItemPointer(SetInvalid/IsInvalid/GetBlockNumberNoCheck) and uses self-described 
macroses. Patch is attached.


-- 
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

Commits

  1. Add missing and dangling downlink checks to amcheck

  2. Fix wrong validation of top-parent pointer during page deletion in Btree.

  3. Add integrity-checking functions to pg_visibility.

  4. Make the handling of interrupted B-tree page splits more robust.