On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:15 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > * Why are there only WARNINGs, never ERRORs here?
Attached revision v22 switches all of the WARNINGs over to ERRORs. It has also been re-indented, and now uses a non-generic version of PageGetItemIdCareful() in both verify_gin.c and verify_gist.c. Obviously this isn't a big set of revisions, but I thought that Andrey would appreciate it if I posted this much now. I haven't thought much more about the locking stuff, which is my main concern for now. Who are the authors of the patch, in full? At some point we'll need to get the attribution right if this is going to be committed. I think that it would be good to add some comments explaining the high level control flow. Is the verification process driven by a breadth-first search, or a depth-first search, or something else? I think that we should focus on getting the GiST patch into shape for commit first, since that seems easier. -- Peter Geoghegan
v22-0002-Add-gist_index_parent_check-function-to-verify-G.patch
Description: Binary data
v22-0001-Refactor-amcheck-to-extract-common-locking-routi.patch
Description: Binary data
v22-0003-Add-gin_index_parent_check-to-verify-GIN-index.patch
Description: Binary data
