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: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
