Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
Date: 2016-03-15 07:11:01
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRyovWOMkpP3SMyNBAi8ksfW61VqjpJDyhw8Mi66xhXHw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-03-15 07:13:17 Re: propose: detail binding error log
Previous Message Ioseph Kim 2016-03-15 07:06:19 Re: propose: detail binding error log