On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 10:12 PM Andrey Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> (0001-GiST-verification-function-for-amcheck-v2.patch)
Thanks for working on this. Some feedback:
* You do this:
> +/* Check of an internal page. Hold locks on two pages at a time
> (parent+child). */
This isn't consistent with what you do within verify_nbtree.c, which
deliberately avoids ever holding more than a single buffer lock at a
time, on general principle. That isn't necessarily a reason why you
have to do the same, but it's not clear why you do things that way.
Why isn't it enough to have a ShareLock on the relation? Maybe this is
a sign that it would be a good idea to always operate on a palloc()'d
copy of the page, by introducing something equivalent to
palloc_btree_page(). (That would also be an opportunity to do very
basic checks on every page.)
* You need to sprinkle a few CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls around.
Certainly, there should be one at the top of the main loop.
* Maybe gist_index_check() should be called gist_index_parent_check(),
since it's rather like the existing verification function
bt_index_parent_check().
* Alternatively, you could find a way to make your function only need
an AccessShareLock -- that would make gist_index_check() an
appropriate name. That would probably require careful thought about
VACUUM.
* Why is it okay to do this?:
> + if (GistTupleIsInvalid(idxtuple))
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("index \"%s\" contains an inner tuple marked as
> invalid",
> + RelationGetRelationName(rel)),
> + errdetail("This is caused by an incomplete page split at
> crash recovery before upgrading to PostgreSQL 9.1."),
> + errhint("Please REINDEX it.")));
You should probably mention the gistdoinsert() precedent for this.
* Can we check GIST_PAGE_ID somewhere? I try to be as paranoid as
possible, adding almost any check that I can think of, provided it
hasn't got very high overhead. Note that gistcheckpage() doesn't do
this for you.
* Should we be concerned about the memory used by pushStackIfSplited()?
* How about a cross-check between IndexTupleSize() and
ItemIdGetLength(), like the B-Tree code? It's a bit unfortunate that
we have this redundancy, which wastes space, but we do, so we might as
well get some small benefit from it.
--
Peter Geoghegan
