From: | Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. |
Date: | 2022-09-08 13:29:16 |
Message-ID: | CACiT8iYi5HKksUenN2D+BxUGKvpRxuVdR37PWGwvDDea2OO6Tg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I also would like to suggest a cosmetic change.
In v15 a new field checkunique is added after heapallindexed and before
no_btree_expansion fields in struct definition, but in initialisation it is
added after no_btree_expansion:
--- a/src/bin/pg_amcheck/pg_amcheck.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_amcheck/pg_amcheck.c
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ typedef struct AmcheckOptions
bool parent_check;
bool rootdescend;
bool heapallindexed;
+ bool checkunique;
/* heap and btree hybrid option */
bool no_btree_expansion;
@@ -132,7 +133,8 @@ static AmcheckOptions opts = {
.parent_check = false,
.rootdescend = false,
.heapallindexed = false,
- .no_btree_expansion = false
+ .no_btree_expansion = false,
+ .checkunique = false
};
I suggest to add checkunique field between heapallindexed and
no_btree_expansion fields in initialisation as well as in definition:
@@ -132,6 +133,7 @@ static AmcheckOptions opts = {
.parent_check = false,
.rootdescend = false,
.heapallindexed = false,
+ .checkunique = false,
.no_btree_expansion = false
};
--
Best regards,
Litskevich Karina
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v16-0001-Add-option-for-amcheck-and-pg_amcheck-to-check-u.patch | text/x-patch | 43.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-09-08 13:29:20 | Re: Bump MIN_WINNT to 0x0600 (Vista) as minimal runtime in 16~ |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-09-08 13:25:01 | Re: [PoC] Let libpq reject unexpected authentication requests |