| 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 21:59:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzne04i1GWFJpxCVdi2dySUkzbTv=sf+VzYwQkku2mhkag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> So you're asking for something like bt_index_check_heap() +
>> bt_index_parent_check_heap()? Or, are you talking about function
>> overloading?
>
> The latter. That addresses my concerns about dropping the function and
> causing issues due to dependencies.
WFM. I have all the information I need to produce the next revision now.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-31 22:15:33 | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-03-31 21:56:06 | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |