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: 2024-12-12T23:59:16Z

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

v3-0001-amcheck-Fix-bt_index_parent_check-behavior-with-C.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v3-0001

Hello, Andrey!

> Interesting bug. It's amazing how long it stand, giving that it would be
triggered by almost any check after updating a table.

Probably because in real cases, bt_index_check is used much more frequently
than bt_index_parent_check.

> From my POV correct fix direction is to use approach similar to index
building.
> E.i. remove "if (!state->readonly)" check. Are there any known downsides
of this?

Yes, it also looks correct to me. I have attached the patch with such
changes.

Also, I have registered a commit fest entry for the issue:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/51/5438/