Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:58 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:27 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thank you for your reminder. Revised patch is attached. Now, the contents of deleted btree pages isn't masked. I've checked that installcheck passes with wal_consistency_checking='Btree'. I'm going to push this if no objections.
>
> This looks good to me. One small thing, though: maybe the comments
> should not say anything about the REDO routine -- that seems like a
> case of "the tail wagging the dog" to me. Perhaps say something like:
>
> "Remove the last pivot tuple on the page. This keeps things simple
> for WAL consistency checking."

Pushed. Comment is changed as you suggested. But I've replaced "last
pivot tuple" with "remaining tuples", because the page can also have a
high key, which is also a tuple.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov