Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Ah, I see the nuance. Thanks for the explanation. Maybe,
> bt_index_check() and bt_index_parent_child_check() /
> bt_index_check_parent_child(). IMHO, the latter more clearly highlights
> the fact that parent/child relationships in the form of down-links are
> checked.

Well, the downlink is in the parent, because there is no such thing as
an "uplink". So I prefer bt_index_parent_check(), since it usefully
hints at starting from the parent. It's also more concise.

> By the way, one request (as a non-native speaker of English language, who
> ends up looking up quite a few words regularly) -
>
> Could we use "conform" or "correspond" instead of "comport" in the
> following error message:
>
> "left link/right link pair in index \"%s\" don't comport"

OK. I'll do something about that.

--
Peter Geoghegan