Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Borisov
Subject Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.
Date
Msg-id CALT9ZEEJs33i2u_vGUFdubw7y_C92HPyNuwfS5uYS+71XmJEgw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.  (Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.
List pgsql-hackers
Hi, Mark!

On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 23:10, Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:


> On May 17, 2024, at 11:51 AM, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Amcheck with checkunique option does check uniqueness violation between pages. But it doesn't warranty detection of cross page uniqueness violations in extremely rare cases when the first equal index entry on the next page corresponds to tuple that is not visible (e.g. dead). In this, I followed the Peter's notion [1] that checking across a number of dead equal entries that could theoretically span even across many pages is an unneeded code complication and amcheck is not a tool that provides any warranty when checking an index.

This confuses me a bit.  The regression test creates a table and index but never performs any DELETE nor any UPDATE operations, so none of the index entries should be dead.  If I am understanding you correct, I'd be forced to conclude that the uniqueness checking code is broken.  Can you take a look?
At the first glance it's not clear to me: 
- why your test creates cross-page unique constraint violations?
- how do you know they are not detected?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: broken tables on hot standby after migration on PostgreSQL 16 (3x times last month)