Re: Corrupted btree index on HEAD because of covering indexes

> heard of people using bt_index_parent_check() in production, but only
> when they already knew that their database was corrupt, and wanted to
> isolate the problem. I imagine that people that use
> bt_index_parent_check() in production do so because they want as much
> information as possible, and are willing to do whatever it takes to
> get more information.
That why I think we need improve amcheck - ideally, it should not miss
any mistakes in tree structure.

>> Agree, but at least this place needs a comment - why it's safe.
>
> Good idea.
Could you write it? I'm afraid I can't give good explanation why we
believe that nobody update this page ant it's high key while page is
unlocked but pinned.

>
>>> I also think that we could have better conventional regression test
>>> coverage here.
>>
>> Will try to invent not so large test.oif it means they may get a little extra
>
> Your smaller test takes about 350ms to run on a debug build on my
> laptop, which seems worth it (honestly, this test should have been
> there already). Maybe we can add it to the amcheck regression tests
> instead, since those are run less often. This also allows us to add a
> test case specifically as part of the amcheck enhancement, which makes
> a bit more sense.
Hm, it seems to me, that 350ms is short enough to place it in both core
and amcheck test. I think, basic functionality should be covered by core
tests as we test insert/create.

--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/