> On 26 Nov 2024, at 11:50, Kirill Reshke <reshkekir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I did mechanical patch rebase & beautification.
Many thanks! Addressing Tomas' feedback was still one of top items on my todo
list. And I'm more than happy that someone advance this patchset.
> Notice my first patch, i did small refactoring as a separate contribution.
It looks like these days such patches are committed via separate threads.
Change looks good to me.
>
> === review from Tomas fixups
>
> 1) 0001-Refactor-amcheck-to-extract-common..
>
> This change was not correct (if stmt now need parenthesis )
>
>> - if (allequalimage && !_bt_allequalimage(indrel, false))
>> - {
>> - bool has_interval_ops = false;
>> -
>> - for (int i = 0; i < IndexRelationGetNumberOfKeyAttributes(indrel); i++)
>> - if (indrel->rd_opfamily[i] == INTERVAL_BTREE_FAM_OID)
>> - has_interval_ops = true;
>> - ereport(ERROR,
>> + for (int i = 0; i < IndexRelationGetNumberOfKeyAttributes(indrel); i++)
>> + if (indrel->rd_opfamily[i] == INTERVAL_BTREE_FAM_OID)
>> + has_interval_ops = true;
>> + ereport(ERROR,
>
> Applied all tomas review comments.
+1. All changes were correct, but there were some questions from Tomas.
> The index relation AM mismatch
> error message now looks like this:
> ```
> db1=# select bt_index_check('users_search_idx');
> ERROR: expected "btree" index as targets for verification
> DETAIL: Relation "users_search_idx" is a gin index.
> ```
Great!
> I included Tomas to review-by section of this patch (in the commit message).
> I also changed the commit message for this patch.
>
> 2) 0002-Add-gist_index_check-function-to-verify-G.patch
> Did apply Tomas review comments. I left GIST's version of
> PageGetItemIdCareful unchanged. Maybe we should have a common check in
> verify_common.c, as Tomas was arguing for, but I'm not doing anything
> for now, because I don't really understand its purpose. All other
> review comments are addressed (i hope), if i'm not missing anything.
>
> I also included my fix for the memory leak mentioned by Tomas.
The fix looks correct to me.
> === problems with gin_index_check
>
> 1)
> ```
> reshke@ygp-jammy:~/postgres/contrib/amcheck$ ../../pgbin/bin/psql db1
> psql (18devel)
> Type "help" for help.
>
> db1=# select gin_index_check('users_search_idx');
> ERROR: index "users_search_idx" has wrong tuple order, block 35868, offset 33
> ```
Ughm... are you sure it's not induced by some collation issues? Did you create
the index on same VM where test was performed?
>
> For some reason gin_index_check fails on my index. I am 99% there is
> no corruption in it. Will try to investigate.
>
> 2) this is already discovered by Tomas, but I add my input here:
>
>
> psql session:
> ```
> db1=# set log_min_messages to debug5;
> SET
> db1=# select gin_index_check('users_search_idx');
>
> ```
>
>
> gdb session:
> ```
> (gdb) bt
> #0 __pthread_kill_implementation (no_tid=0, signo=6,
> threadid=140601454760896) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44
> #1 __pthread_kill_internal (signo=6, threadid=140601454760896) at
> ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78
> #2 __GI___pthread_kill (threadid=140601454760896,
> signo=signo@entry=6) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:89
> #3 0x00007fe055af0476 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at
> ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26
> #4 0x00007fe055ad67f3 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79
> #5 0x000055ea82af4ef0 in ExceptionalCondition
> (conditionName=conditionName@entry=0x7fe04a87aa35
> "ItemPointerIsValid(pointer)",
> fileName=fileName@entry=0x7fe04a87a928
> "../../src/include/storage/itemptr.h",
> lineNumber=lineNumber@entry=126) at assert.c:66
> #6 0x00007fe04a871372 in ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber
> (pointer=<optimized out>) at ../../src/include/storage/itemptr.h:126
> #7 ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber (pointer=<optimized out>) at
> ../../src/include/storage/itemptr.h:124
> #8 gin_check_posting_tree_parent_keys_consistency
> (posting_tree_root=<optimized out>, rel=<optimized out>) at
> verify_gin.c:296
> #9 gin_check_parent_keys_consistency (rel=rel@entry=0x7fe04a8aa328,
> heaprel=heaprel@entry=0x7fe04a8a9db8,
> callback_state=callback_state@entry=0x0,
> readonly=readonly@entry=false) at verify_gin.c:597
> #10 0x00007fe04a87098d in amcheck_lock_relation_and_check
> (indrelid=16488, am_id=am_id@entry=2742,
> check=check@entry=0x7fe04a870a80 <gin_check_parent_keys_consistency>,
> lockmode=lockmode@entry=1,
> state=state@entry=0x0) at verify_common.c:132
> #11 0x00007fe04a871e34 in gin_index_check (fcinfo=<optimized out>) at
> verify_gin.c:81
> #12 0x000055ea827cc275 in ExecInterpExpr (state=0x55ea84903390,
> econtext=0x55ea84903138, isnull=<optimized out>) at
> execExprInterp.c:770
> #13 0x000055ea82804fdc in ExecEvalExprSwitchContext
> (isNull=0x7ffeba7fdd37, econtext=0x55ea84903138, state=0x55ea84903390)
> at ../../../src/include/executor/executor.h:367
> #14 ExecProject (projInfo=0x55ea84903388) at
> ../../../src/include/executor/executor.h:401
> #15 ExecResult (pstate=<optimized out>) at nodeResult.c:135
> #16 0x000055ea827d007a in ExecProcNode (node=0x55ea84903028) at
> ../../../src/include/executor/executor.h:278
> #17 ExecutePlan (execute_once=<optimized out>, dest=0x55ea84901940,
> direction=<optimized out>, numberTuples=0, sendTuples=<optimized out>,
> operation=CMD_SELECT, use_parallel_mode=<optimized out>,
> planstate=0x55ea84903028, estate=0x55ea84902e00) at execMain.c:1655
> #18 standard_ExecutorRun (queryDesc=0x55ea8485c1a0,
> direction=<optimized out>, count=0, execute_once=<optimized out>) at
> execMain.c:362
> #19 0x000055ea829ad6df in PortalRunSelect (portal=0x55ea848b1810,
> forward=<optimized out>, count=0, dest=<optimized out>) at
> pquery.c:924
> #20 0x000055ea829aedc1 in PortalRun
> (portal=portal@entry=0x55ea848b1810,
> count=count@entry=9223372036854775807,
> isTopLevel=isTopLevel@entry=true, run_once=run_once@entry=true,
> dest=dest@entry=0x55ea84901940,
> altdest=altdest@entry=0x55ea84901940, qc=0x7ffeba7fdfd0) at
> pquery.c:768
> #21 0x000055ea829aab47 in exec_simple_query
> (query_string=0x55ea84831250 "select
> gin_index_check('users_search_idx');") at postgres.c:1283
> #22 0x000055ea829ac777 in PostgresMain (dbname=<optimized out>,
> username=<optimized out>) at postgres.c:4798
> #23 0x000055ea829a6a33 in BackendMain (startup_data=<optimized out>,
> startup_data_len=<optimized out>) at backend_startup.c:107
> #24 0x000055ea8290122f in postmaster_child_launch
> (child_type=<optimized out>, child_slot=1,
> startup_data=startup_data@entry=0x7ffeba7fe48c "",
> startup_data_len=startup_data_len@entry=4,
> client_sock=client_sock@entry=0x7ffeba7fe490) at launch_backend.c:274
> #25 0x000055ea82904c3f in BackendStartup (client_sock=0x7ffeba7fe490)
> at postmaster.c:3377
> #26 ServerLoop () at postmaster.c:1663
> #27 0x000055ea8290656b in PostmasterMain (argc=argc@entry=3,
> argv=argv@entry=0x55ea8482ab10) at postmaster.c:1361
> #28 0x000055ea825ecc0a in main (argc=3, argv=0x55ea8482ab10) at main.c:196
> (gdb)
> ```
>
> We also need to change the default version of the extension to 1.5.
> I'm not sure which patch of this series should do that.
+1
>
> ====
> Overall I think 0001 & 0002 are ready as-is. 0003 is maybe ok. Other
> patches need more review rounds.
Yeah, I agree with this analysis.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
