Horton

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

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Maxim Orlov <m.orlov@postgrespro.ru>, lubennikovaav@gmail.com
Date: 2024-05-17T20:13:20Z
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 Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:10 PM Mark Dilger
<mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> The quick-and-dirty TAP test I wrote this morning is intended to introduce duplicates across page boundaries, not to test for ones that got there by normal database activity.  In other words, the TAP test forcibly corrupts the index by changing a value on one side of a boundary to be equal to the value on the other side of the boundary.  Prior to the corrupting action the values were all unique.

I understood that. I was just pointing out that an index that looks
even somewhat like that is already quite unnatural.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan