Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

Hi Peter,

On 2016/03/15 16:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> Dunno about that. It's defining characteristic is that it checks child
>>> pages against their parent IMV. Things are not often defined in terms
>>> of their locking requirements.
>>
>> At the risk of sounding a bit verbose, do bt_check_level() for a check
>> that inspects a level at a time and bt_check_multi_level() for a check
>> that spans levels sound descriptive?
>
> Hmm. But all functions verify multiple levels. What distinguishes
> bt_index_parent_check()'s verification is that the downlinks in
> internal pages are checked against actual child pages (every item in
> the child page, in fact). It's the parent/child relationship that is
> verified in addition to the standard checks of every page on and
> across (not between) every level.

Ah, I see the nuance. Thanks for the explanation. Maybe,
bt_index_check() and bt_index_parent_child_check() /
bt_index_check_parent_child(). IMHO, the latter more clearly highlights
the fact that parent/child relationships in the form of down-links are
checked.

By the way, one request (as a non-native speaker of English language, who
ends up looking up quite a few words regularly) -

Could we use "conform" or "correspond" instead of "comport" in the
following error message:

"left link/right link pair in index \"%s\" don't comport"

Thanks,
Amit