Horton

Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.

Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Maxim Orlov <m.orlov@postgrespro.ru>, lubennikovaav@gmail.com, Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@percona.com>
Date: 2024-04-17T06:38:48Z
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. amcheck: Optimize speed of checking for unique constraint violation

  2. amcheck: Report an error when the next page to a leaf is not a leaf

  3. amcheck: Don't load the right sibling page into BtreeCheckState

  4. amcheck: Refactoring the storage of the last visible entry

  5. Teach contrib/amcheck to check the unique constraint violation

  6. Add macros in hash and btree AMs to get the special area of their pages

On 24.10.23 22:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:44 AM Aleksander Alekseev
> <aleksander@timescale.com> wrote:
>>> I think, this patch was marked as "Waiting on Author", probably, by mistake. Since recent changes were done without any significant code changes and CF bot how happy again.
>>>
>>> I'm going to move it to RfC, could I? If not, please tell why.
>>
>> I restored the "Ready for Committer" state. I don't think it's a good
>> practice to change the state every time the patch has a slight
>> conflict or something. This is not helpful at all. Such things happen
>> quite regularly and typically are fixed in a couple of days.
> 
> This patch seems useful to me.  I went through the thread, it seems
> that all the critics are addressed.
> 
> I've rebased this patch.   Also, I've run perltidy for tests, split
> long errmsg() into errmsg(), errdetail() and errhint(), and do other
> minor enchantments.
> 
> I think this patch is ready to go.  I'm going to push it if there are
> no objections.

I just found the new pg_amcheck option --checkunique in PG17-to-be. 
Could we rename this to --check-unique?  Seems friendlier.  Maybe also 
rename the bt_index_check function argument to check_unique.