From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Arseniy Mukhin <arseniy(dot)mukhin(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: amcheck support for BRIN indexes |
Date: | 2025-06-18 11:39:05 |
Message-ID: | 14D6E2AE-3813-4AC7-B42F-6D0E765D551C@yandex-team.ru |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 18 Jun 2025, at 11:33, Arseniy Mukhin <arseniy(dot)mukhin(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Interesting, I used btree check as reference when started
> writing brin check, and in btree check there 53
> ERRCODE_INDEX_CORRUPTED ereports and only 1 ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED
> ereport. So it was very hard to do, but I managed to pick the wrong
> one. I wonder if this btree check ereport should also be changed to
> ERRCODE_INDEX_CORRUPTED?
It's there in a case of heapallindexes failure. I concur that ERRCODE_INDEX_CORRUPTED is more appropriate in that case in verify_nbtree.c.
But I recollect Peter explained this code before somewhere in pgsql-hackers. And the reasoning was something like "if you lack a tuple in unquie constraints - it's almost certainly subsequent constrain violation and data loss". But I'm not sure.
And I could not find this discussion in archives.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2025-06-18 14:35:54 | Re: pg_dump misses comments on NOT NULL constraints |
Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2025-06-18 11:33:49 | Re: Avoid possible dereference null pointer (contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c) |