Re: bt_index_parent_check and concurrently build indexes

Mihail Nikalayeu <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com>

From: Michail Nikolaev <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com>

To: "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>

Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2024-12-15T18:43:24Z

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 →

amcheck: Fix snapshot usage in bt_index_parent_check
- e1a327dc4dcb 17.8 landed
- dcddd6987197 15.16 landed
- 607a67c5e657 14.21 landed
- 3c83a2a0ace9 18.2 landed
- 1f28982e4094 19 (unreleased) landed
- 098a1fab8a9b 16.12 landed
- df93f94dda51 18.2 landed
- ce2f575b7cf4 17.8 landed
- 6bd469d26aca 19 (unreleased) landed
Teach contrib/amcheck to check the unique constraint violation
- 5ae2087202af 17.0 cited

Attachments

v2-0001-amcheck-Fix-bt_index_parent_check-behavior-with-C.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v2-0001

Hello, Andrey!

Thanks for the review!

> I think usually write only commit year. Something tells me you can safely
write 2025 there.
Done.

> Can't wrap my head why do you need this?
Oops, copy-paste, fixed.

> I think this comment describes behavior before the fix in present tense.
Fixed.

> Snapshot business seems incorrect to me here...
Hm, it seems like it is correct. `snapshot` variable is deleted, we only
use `state->snapshot` now (if it is required at all).

Best regards,
Mikhail.