Re: pageinspect: Hash index support

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Jesper Pedersen
<jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/11/2017 03:16 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have rephrased it to make it more clear.
>>
>
> Rebased, and removed the compile warn in hashfuncs.c
>

Review comments:

1.
+static Page
+verify_hash_page(bytea *raw_page, int flags)

Few checks for meta page are missing, refer _hash_checkpage.

2.
+ if (!superuser())
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
+ (errmsg("must be superuser to use pageinspect functions"))));

Isn't it better to use "raw page" instead of "pageinspect" in the
above error message? If you agree, then fix other similar occurrences
in the patch.

3.
+ values[j++] = CStringGetTextDatum(psprintf("(%u,%u)",
+ BlockIdGetBlockNumber(&(itup->t_tid.ip_blkid)),
+ itup->t_tid.ip_posid));

Fix indentation in the third line.

4.
+Datum
+hash_page_items(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ bytea *raw_page = PG_GETARG_BYTEA_P(0);

+Datum
+hash_bitmap_info(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ Oid indexRelid = PG_GETARG_OID(0);
+ uint32 ovflblkno = PG_GETARG_UINT32(1);

Is there a reason for keeping the input arguments for
hash_bitmap_info() different from hash_page_items()?

5.
+hash_metapage_info(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
..
+ spares = palloc0(HASH_MAX_SPLITPOINTS * 5 + 1);
..
+ mapp = palloc0(HASH_MAX_BITMAPS * 5 + 1);
..
}

Don't you think we should free the allocated memory in this function?
Also, why are you 5 as a multiplier in both the above pallocs,
shouldn't it be 4?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com