On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:22 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > I'll take care of it, then.
Attached is v10, which has some comment and style fix-ups, including the stuff Alvaro mentioned. It also adds line pointer sanitization to match what I added to verify_nbtree.c in commit a9ce839a (we use a custom PageGetItemIdCareful() for GiST instead of a simple PageGetItemId()). I also added a new file/TU for the routines that are now common to both nbtree and GiST verification, which I named amcheck.c. (I'm not sure about that, but I don't like verify_nbtree.c having generic/common functions.) I have only had a few hours to polish this, which doesn't seem like enough, though was enough to fix the noticeable stuff. My main concern now is the heavyweight lock strength needed by the new function. I don't feel particularly qualified to sign off on the concurrency aspects of the patch. Heikki's v6 used a ShareLock, like bt_index_parent_check(), but you went back to an AccessShareLock, Andrey. Why is this safe? I see that you do gist_refind_parent() in your v9 a little differently to Heikki in his v6, which you seemed to suggest made this safe in your e-mail on March 28, but I don't understand that at all. -- Peter Geoghegan
v10-0001-Revisions-of-GiST-amcheck-from-Peter.patch
Description: Binary data
