On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 6:34 PM Tomas Vondra <to...@vondra.me> wrote: > > On 6/9/25 00:14, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > ... > > > > I propose to split it like this, into three parts, each addressing a > > particular type of mistake: > > > > 1) gin_check_posting_tree_parent_keys_consistency > > > > 2) gin_check_parent_keys_consistency / att comparisons > > > > 3) gin_check_parent_keys_consistency / setting ptr->parenttup (at the end) > > > > Does this make sense to you? If yes, can you split the patch series like > > this, including a commit message for each part, explaining the fix? We'd > > need the commit message even with a single patch, ofc. > > > The attached v5 patch splits it along these lines, except that the extra > 0001 part merely adds a multicolumn index into the regression test. The > 0002-0004 parts are ordered to match the TAP test, i.e. it adds tests.
Great, thank you. > I've copied the points from the report to the commit messages, but this > needs cleanup/rephrasing, to make it readable. Could you look into > that?Of course, if you think the patches should be split differently, > feel free to move stuff. Yes, sure, I will do it ASAP. > And as I said before - if you feel the issues are too intertwined and > can't be split like this (or it just doesn't make sense), please speak > up. We can commit that as a single patch. It still needs the commit > message, though. The way it splitted seems reasonable to me. Intertwined issues are grouped together, and patches are more or less independent. Also the test for 'posting tree parent_key check' that was added last started failing locally. Don't know what changed, but I rewrote it so now it relies on child blkno, which is stable (I hope), instead of concrete TID. Will include it in the new patchset. Best regards, Arseniy Mukhin
