Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8c74cc5e-4b97-4cd7-9aaf-67886822a78c@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.10.23 22:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:44 AM Aleksander Alekseev > <aleksander@timescale.com> wrote: >>> I think, this patch was marked as "Waiting on Author", probably, by mistake. Since recent changes were done without anysignificant code changes and CF bot how happy again. >>> >>> I'm going to move it to RfC, could I? If not, please tell why. >> >> I restored the "Ready for Committer" state. I don't think it's a good >> practice to change the state every time the patch has a slight >> conflict or something. This is not helpful at all. Such things happen >> quite regularly and typically are fixed in a couple of days. > > This patch seems useful to me. I went through the thread, it seems > that all the critics are addressed. > > I've rebased this patch. Also, I've run perltidy for tests, split > long errmsg() into errmsg(), errdetail() and errhint(), and do other > minor enchantments. > > I think this patch is ready to go. I'm going to push it if there are > no objections. I just found the new pg_amcheck option --checkunique in PG17-to-be. Could we rename this to --check-unique? Seems friendlier. Maybe also rename the bt_index_check function argument to check_unique.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: