On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:20 AM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > For the part of treating that case as an index corruption I will need > some time to review because of lacking knowledge of btree indexes. So > I'll review it later.
I pushed the refactoring patch today. Thanks for the review. The final test for corruption that I added to btvacuumscan() is less aggressive than what you saw in the patch I posted. We only report corruption when backtracking/recursing if the page is "new", not a leaf page, or is half-dead. We don't treat a fully deleted page as corruption, because there is a case where the same call to btvacuumscan() may have called _bt_pagedel() already, which may have deleted the block that we backtrack/recurse to. The "sibling links cannot point to a deleted page without concurrent deletion, and we know that can't happen because we are VACUUM" stuff doesn't really apply -- we remember which block we will recurse to *before* we actually call _bt_pagedel(). -- Peter Geoghegan
