Re: Bug in amcheck? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mihail Nikalayeu
Subject Re: Bug in amcheck?
Date
Msg-id CADzfLwU+8dMq4EQ3kRuDCv2giS+_AUX5Q4LYO6x5PKghdAfK6A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Bug in amcheck?  (Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello!

> I wonder if we should add P_ISHALFDEAD(opaque) for child page?

I am not a btree expert, but things I was able to find so far:

In commit d114cc538715e14d29d6de8b6ea1a1d5d3e0edb4 next check is added:

> bt_child_highkey_check(state, downlinkoffnum,
>                   child, topaque->btpo_level);

At the same time there is a comment below:

> * We go ahead with our checks if the child page is half-dead.  It's safe
> * to do so because we do not test the child's high key, so it does not
> * matter that the original high key will have been replaced by a dummy
> * truncated high key within _bt_mark_page_halfdead().  All other page
> * items are left intact on a half-dead page, so there is still something
> * to test.

So, yes, it looks like we need to skip the child's high key test for
half-dead pages.

BWT, have you tried to create an injection_point-based reproducer?

Best regards,
Mikhail.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Should HashSetOp go away
Next
From: Mihail Nikalayeu
Date:
Subject: Re: test_json_parser/002_inline is kind of slow