On 2025-Dec-06, Donghang Lin wrote: > The issue itself in fact doesn't depend on BtreeCheckState's snapshot > member. So the fix for 14-16 can make snapshot a local variable in > the bt_check_every_level function to make the scope small. Do you > think it's worth changing it to a local variable?
Ah, excellent observation. Yes, it's definitely worth it. > I don't think the issue itself is related to 5ae2087202af but actually > 7f563c09f890 where the heapallindexed flag is introduced for > bt_index_check. Hmm, interesting. I wonder what made me think it was about uniqueness. > The committed test also doesn't check the uniqueness of an index. > Should the commit message be restated to reflect this and also restate > it's backport to 14 and up? Sure. > I think we'll have another chance to reflect that the issue is since > 7f563c09f890 but not 5ae2087202af in master for this fix. I can give > it a try. Go ahead. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ Tom: There seems to be something broken here. Teodor: I'm in sackcloth and ashes... Fixed. http://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
