| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Maxim Orlov <m(dot)orlov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. |
| Date: | 2024-04-17 06:38:48 |
| Message-ID: | 8c74cc5e-4b97-4cd7-9aaf-67886822a78c@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.10.23 22:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:44 AM Aleksander Alekseev
> <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think, this patch was marked as "Waiting on Author", probably, by mistake. Since recent changes were done without any significant code changes and CF bot how happy again.
>>>
>>> I'm going to move it to RfC, could I? If not, please tell why.
>>
>> I restored the "Ready for Committer" state. I don't think it's a good
>> practice to change the state every time the patch has a slight
>> conflict or something. This is not helpful at all. Such things happen
>> quite regularly and typically are fixed in a couple of days.
>
> This patch seems useful to me. I went through the thread, it seems
> that all the critics are addressed.
>
> I've rebased this patch. Also, I've run perltidy for tests, split
> long errmsg() into errmsg(), errdetail() and errhint(), and do other
> minor enchantments.
>
> I think this patch is ready to go. I'm going to push it if there are
> no objections.
I just found the new pg_amcheck option --checkunique in PG17-to-be.
Could we rename this to --check-unique? Seems friendlier. Maybe also
rename the bt_index_check function argument to check_unique.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2024-04-17 06:46:53 | Re: documentation structure |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-17 06:10:04 | Re: Typo about the SetDatatabaseHasLoginEventTriggers? |