Horton

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

Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>
To: Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.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>, 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
Date: 2024-04-25T13:54:39Z
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. 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

Hi, Karina!

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:44, Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, hackers!
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 4:00 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 0005: Rename checkunique parameter to more user friendly as proposed by
>> Peter Eisentraut and Alexander Korotkov
>>
>
> I'm not sure renaming checkunique is a good idea. Other arguments of
> bt_index_check and bt_index_parent_check functions (heapallindexed and
> rootdescend) don't have underscore character in them. Corresponding
> pg_amcheck options (--heapallindexed and --rootdescend) are also written
> in one piece. check_unique and --check-unique stand out. Making arguments
> and options in different styles doesn't seem user friendly to me.
>

I did it under the consensus of Peter Eisentraut and Alexander Korotkov.
The pro for renaming is more user-friendly naming, I also agree.
The cons is that we already have both styles: "non-user friendly"
heapallindexed and rootdescend and "user-friendly" parent-check.

I'm ready to go with consensus in this matter. It's also not yet too late
to make it unique-check (instead of check-unique) to be better in style
with parent-check.

Kind regards,
Pavel