Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date: 2018-03-31 18:27:14
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkXR3CvxJNr6Ewsn9Oo--REZNuML-wjJ_YS9Pp-dXYX5g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I'm just saying that there should be two functions here, rather than dropping the old definition, and creating s new one with a default argument.

So you're asking for something like bt_index_check_heap() +
bt_index_parent_check_heap()? Or, are you talking about function
overloading?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2018-03-31 18:28:31 Re: some last patches breaks plan cache
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-31 18:03:38 Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] adding simple sock check for windows