Hi Peter, On 2016/03/15 16:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> Dunno about that. It's defining characteristic is that it checks child >>> pages against their parent IMV. Things are not often defined in terms >>> of their locking requirements. >> >> At the risk of sounding a bit verbose, do bt_check_level() for a check >> that inspects a level at a time and bt_check_multi_level() for a check >> that spans levels sound descriptive? > > Hmm. But all functions verify multiple levels. What distinguishes > bt_index_parent_check()'s verification is that the downlinks in > internal pages are checked against actual child pages (every item in > the child page, in fact). It's the parent/child relationship that is > verified in addition to the standard checks of every page on and > across (not between) every level.
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. 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" Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers