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: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: 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>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Maxim Orlov <m.orlov@postgrespro.ru>, lubennikovaav@gmail.com
Date: 2024-05-17T21:08:03Z
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, Mark!

> > At the first glance it's not clear to me:
> > - why your test creates cross-page unique constraint violations?
>
> To see if they are detected.
>
> > - how do you know they are not detected?
>
> It appears that they are detected.  At least, rerunning the test after
> adjusting the expected output, I no longer see problems.
>

I understand your point. It was unclear how it modified the index so that
only unique constraint check between pages should have failed with other
checks passed.

Anyway, thanks for your testing and efforts! I'm happy that the test now
passes and confirms that amcheck feature works as intended.

Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov