Hi! +1 for pushing this. I'm really looking forward to see this in 11. > 31 окт. 2017 г., в 13:21, Anastasia Lubennikova > <a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> написал(а): > > Updated version is attached. It applies to the commit > e4fbf22831c2bbcf032ee60a327b871d2364b3f5. > The first patch patch contains changes in general index routines > and the second one contains btree specific changes. > > This version contains fixes of the issues mentioned in the thread above and > passes all existing tests. > But still it requires review and testing, because the merge was quite uneasy. > Especially I worry about integration with partitioning. I'll add some more > tests in the next message.
I've been doing benchmark tests a year ago, so I skip this part in this review. I've done some stress tests with pgbench, replication etc. Everything was fine until I plugged in amcheck. If I create cluster with this [0] and then ./pgbench -i -s 50 create index on pgbench_accounts (abalance) include (bid,aid,filler); create extension amcheck; --and finally SELECT bt_index_check(c.oid), c.relname, c.relpages FROM pg_index i JOIN pg_opclass op ON i.indclass[0] = op.oid JOIN pg_am am ON op.opcmethod = am.oid JOIN pg_class c ON i.indexrelid = c.oid JOIN pg_namespace n ON c.relnamespace = n.oid WHERE am.amname = 'btree' AND n.nspname = 'public' AND c.relpersistence != 't' AND i.indisready AND i.indisvalid ORDER BY c.relpages DESC LIMIT 100; --just copypasted from amcheck docs with minor corrections Postgres crashes: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((const void*)(&isNull) != ((void*)0)) && (scankey->sk_attno) > 0)", File: "nbtsearch.c", Line: 466) May be I'm doing something wrong or amcheck support will go with different patch? Few minor nitpicks: 0. PgAdmin fails to understand what is going on [1] . It is clearly problem of PgAdmin, pg_dump works as expected. 1. ISTM index_truncate_tuple() can be optimized. We only need to reset tuple length and infomask. But this should not be hotpath, anyway, so I propose ignoring this for current version. 2. I've done grammarly checking :) This comma seems redundant [2] I don't think something of these items require fixing. Thanks for working on this, I believe it is important. Best regards, Andrey Borodin. [0] https://github.com/x4m/pgscripts/blob/master/install.sh [1] https://yadi.sk/i/ro9YKFqo3PcwFT [2] https://github.com/x4m/postgres_g/commit/657c28952d923d8c150e6cabb3bdcbbc44a641b6?diff=unified#diff-640baf2937029728a8d51cccd554c2eeR1291 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers