Horton

Re: [PATCH] Check that index can return in get_actual_variable_range()

Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Maxime Schoemans <maxime.schoemans@enterprisedb.com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@tigerdata.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2025-10-28T09:20:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Check that index can return in get_actual_variable_range()

  2. Fix crash/valgrind error

  3. Support non-btree indexes in get_actual_variable_range()

On 22.09.25 16:38, Maxime Schoemans wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2025, at 10:20, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@tigerdata.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, this is how we typically test cases like this. IMO adding a test
>> module would be helpful. It can be reused for other scenarios.
> 
> Here is an updated patch set.
> - 0001 is unchanged.
> - 0002 contains the module that tests the correct behavior of
> get_actual_variable_range for non-returning ordering indices.
> It contains a copy of the btree handler function with its index-only
> capabilities removed. If you apply patch 0002 on master without 0001,
> you will see that the test returns an error (ERROR:  no data returned
> for index-only scan) as it tries to use the index in
> get_actual_variable_range, which shouldn’t be the case.

I have committed the first patch.

The test suite is probably a bit too bulky for testing this particular 
niche behavior.  Also, it doesn't work with assertions enabled because 
of the hardcoded BTREE_AM_OID in src/include/access/nbtree.h.  So I 
don't plan to commit that.  But it's good to have it in the archive, and 
perhaps it can be part of a larger test suite for the index AM API at 
some point in the future.