Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On 3/15/16 3:42 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, the downlink is in the parent, because there is no such thing as
> an "uplink". So I prefer bt_index_parent_check(), since it usefully
> hints at starting from the parent. It's also more concise.
>
>> 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"
>
> OK. I'll do something about that.

It looks like an updated patch is expected here, though it seems that
the only requests are for updates to comments.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net