Re: bt_index_parent_check and concurrently build indexes

From: "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bt_index_parent_check and concurrently build indexes
Date: 2024-12-15 17:41:37
Message-ID: DAED842D-7AF8-447D-9411-5F1DBF9252B0@yandex-team.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 13 Dec 2024, at 04:59, Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> <v3-0001-amcheck-Fix-bt_index_parent_check-behavior-with-C.patch>

+# Copyright (c) 2021-2024, PostgreSQL Global Development Group

I think usually write only commit year. Something tells me you can safely write 2025 there.

+Test::More->builder->todo_start('filesystem bug')
+ if PostgreSQL::Test::Utils::has_wal_read_bug;

Can't wrap my head why do you need this?

+# it fails, because it is expect to find the deleted row in index

I think this comment describes behavior before the fix in present tense.

- if (snapshot != SnapshotAny)
- UnregisterSnapshot(snapshot);

Snapshot business seems incorrect to me here...

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michail Nikolaev 2024-12-15 17:43:35 Re: Windows UTF8 system locale
Previous Message Andres Freund 2024-12-15 16:15:23 Re: pg_attribute_noreturn(), MSVC, C11