On 2025-05-30 01:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
I've pushed the 0001 patch. Thanks!
Thanks!
This is not directly relation to your proposal, but while reading
the index_checkable() function, I noticed that ReleaseSysCache()
is not called after SearchSysCache1(). Shouldn't we call
ReleaseSysCache() here? Alternatively, we could use get_am_name()
instead of SearchSysCache1(), which might be simpler.
Agreed.
I may have been mistaken earlier. Based on the comment in
SearchSysCache(),
the tuple returned by SearchSysCache1() is valid until the end of the
transaction.
Since index_checkable() raises an error and ends the transaction
immediately
after calling SearchSysCache1(), it seems safe to skip
ReleaseSysCache()
in this case. Using get_am_name() instead seems simpler, though.
Thought?
As you said, it seems safe since SearchSysCache() is only used for
constructing
the error message. However, using get_am_name() is simpler and cleaner.
I also observed that the error code ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED
is used when the relation is not the expected type in
index_checkable().
However, based on similar cases (e.g., pgstattuple), it seems that
ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE might be more appropriate in this
situation.
Thought?
Agreed. I also change the error code to
ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE
when the index is not valid.
+1.
Should we commit patch 0003 before 0002? Also, should we consider
back-patching it?
OK, I think v5-0002 should be back-patched, since using incorrect error
codes is essentially a bug.
Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
From 4ccb2dc947270073f67481e73862bb5ed8c40c03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Masahiro Ikeda <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 16:02:17 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/2] Fix incorrect error code in index_checkable().
ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED was used for object type
error and invalid indexes error, use proper error codes
instead.
---
contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c b/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c
index d095e62ce55..54f9c230a3e 100644
--- a/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c
+++ b/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ index_checkable(Relation rel, Oid am_id)
amtup = SearchSysCache1(AMOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(am_id));
amtuprel = SearchSysCache1(AMOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(rel->rd_rel->relam));
ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE),
errmsg("expected \"%s\" index as targets for verification", NameStr(((Form_pg_am) GETSTRUCT(amtup))->amname)),
errdetail("Relation \"%s\" is a %s index.",
RelationGetRelationName(rel), NameStr(((Form_pg_am) GETSTRUCT(amtuprel))->amname))));
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ index_checkable(Relation rel, Oid am_id)
if (!rel->rd_index->indisvalid)
ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
errmsg("cannot check index \"%s\"",
RelationGetRelationName(rel)),
errdetail("Index is not valid.")));
--
2.34.1
From f53992783e1b8e5915bd076eeeb071ef98051aba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Masahiro Ikeda <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 16:07:22 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v5 2/2] Refactor and improve error messages in
index_checkable().
Refactor the function to use get_am_name() and improve error
messages for partitioned indexes.
---
contrib/amcheck/expected/check_btree.out | 8 ++++++++
contrib/amcheck/sql/check_btree.sql | 7 +++++++
contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c | 19 +++++++++----------
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/contrib/amcheck/expected/check_btree.out b/contrib/amcheck/expected/check_btree.out
index c6f4b16c556..6558f2c5a4f 100644
--- a/contrib/amcheck/expected/check_btree.out
+++ b/contrib/amcheck/expected/check_btree.out
@@ -60,6 +60,14 @@ SELECT bt_index_parent_check('bttest_a_brin_idx');
ERROR: expected "btree" index as targets for verification
DETAIL: Relation "bttest_a_brin_idx" is a brin index.
ROLLBACK;
+-- verify partitioned indexes are rejected (error)
+BEGIN;
+CREATE TABLE bttest_partitioned (a int, b int) PARTITION BY list (a);
+CREATE INDEX bttest_btree_partitioned_idx ON bttest_partitioned USING btree (b);
+SELECT bt_index_parent_check('bttest_btree_partitioned_idx');
+ERROR: expected index as targets for verification
+DETAIL: This operation is not supported for partitioned indexes.
+ROLLBACK;
-- normal check outside of xact
SELECT bt_index_check('bttest_a_idx');
bt_index_check
diff --git a/contrib/amcheck/sql/check_btree.sql b/contrib/amcheck/sql/check_btree.sql
index 0793dbfeebd..171f7f691ec 100644
--- a/contrib/amcheck/sql/check_btree.sql
+++ b/contrib/amcheck/sql/check_btree.sql
@@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ CREATE INDEX bttest_a_brin_idx ON bttest_a USING brin(id);
SELECT bt_index_parent_check('bttest_a_brin_idx');
ROLLBACK;
+-- verify partitioned indexes are rejected (error)
+BEGIN;
+CREATE TABLE bttest_partitioned (a int, b int) PARTITION BY list (a);
+CREATE INDEX bttest_btree_partitioned_idx ON bttest_partitioned USING btree (b);
+SELECT bt_index_parent_check('bttest_btree_partitioned_idx');
+ROLLBACK;
+
-- normal check outside of xact
SELECT bt_index_check('bttest_a_idx');
-- more expansive tests
diff --git a/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c b/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c
index 54f9c230a3e..22dda9afddd 100644
--- a/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c
+++ b/contrib/amcheck/verify_common.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include "verify_common.h"
#include "catalog/index.h"
#include "catalog/pg_am.h"
+#include "commands/defrem.h"
#include "commands/tablecmds.h"
#include "utils/guc.h"
#include "utils/syscache.h"
@@ -158,20 +159,18 @@ amcheck_lock_relation_and_check(Oid indrelid,
bool
index_checkable(Relation rel, Oid am_id)
{
- if (rel->rd_rel->relkind != RELKIND_INDEX ||
- rel->rd_rel->relam != am_id)
- {
- HeapTuple amtup;
- HeapTuple amtuprel;
+ if (rel->rd_rel->relkind != RELKIND_INDEX)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE),
+ errmsg("expected index as targets for verification"),
+ errdetail_relkind_not_supported(rel->rd_rel->relkind)));
- amtup = SearchSysCache1(AMOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(am_id));
- amtuprel = SearchSysCache1(AMOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(rel->rd_rel->relam));
+ if (rel->rd_rel->relam != am_id)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE),
- errmsg("expected \"%s\" index as targets for verification", NameStr(((Form_pg_am) GETSTRUCT(amtup))->amname)),
+ errmsg("expected \"%s\" index as targets for verification", get_am_name(am_id)),
errdetail("Relation \"%s\" is a %s index.",
- RelationGetRelationName(rel), NameStr(((Form_pg_am) GETSTRUCT(amtuprel))->amname))));
- }
+ RelationGetRelationName(rel), get_am_name(rel->rd_rel->relam))));
if (RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP(rel))
ereport(ERROR,
--
2.34.1
