> On 3 Mar 2026, at 04:19, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see any other logic problems in the code, I only have a few
> minor comments/questions:
>
> + * Bloom filter says (key, tid) not in heap. Follow TID to verify; this
> + * amortizes random heap lookups when the filter has false negatives, or
>
> This comment could be a bit confusing, as bloom filters typically have
> false positives, not negatives.
> Maybe it would be better to phrase this somehow differently?
>
> Another thing is that now amcheck can create two bloom filters,
> allocated at the same time, both up to maintenance_work_mem.
> Isn't that a detail that should be at least mentioned somewhere?
>
> And in the documentation, shouldn't this new check mention something
> similar to heapallindexed, which describes the check possibly missing
> corruption because of the bloom filter?
>
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INDEX_CORRUPTED),
> + errmsg("index tuple in index \"%s\" does not match heap tuple",
> + RelationGetRelationName(state->rel)),
>
> Shouldn't this also print out the table name?
Thanks for the review! I've addressed all these issues in patch steps 4 and 5. Other steps are intact. PFA.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
