From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
        Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>,
        Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
        David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
        Maxim Orlov <m.orlov@postgrespro.ru>, lubennikovaav@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.
In-reply-to: <BC582142-AD7E-4591-A541-7578B62DE3D8@enterprisedb.com>
References: <CALT9ZEG9Zk5TxuDTnZPGe9H+b7DL40gXfeouWCaZ3A70yvyWLw@mail.gmail.com> <CALT9ZEG1YAfPBH-ZMnK-cxu0SDdrV_w0QEBs9BLHfWvddpOHFA@mail.gmail.com> <20220922151328.lakwdytvwnyyif3b@awork3.anarazel.de> <CACG=ezbRVZrdTguWphiFP-L2cCi_jy+spZA0wPJWA806B0=2dQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACG=ezYk7up-BUL30SrGozURYWt97BK2f=XhUL6S+qU3F9qVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ7c6TOe-ifS9JAqhk-5rPrAbnfGkxNYQiWnR6CUaAqLP31T6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPpHfduqJ9QCOrXDjkPxPRxJRws1FgFELwB2Yz3L6-n7FQMsrA@mail.gmail.com> <8c74cc5e-4b97-4cd7-9aaf-67886822a78c@eisentraut.org> <CAPpHfdvY7UitNMgUKVx73+W_6STCRoiRBmoE2t7WP1-KBodT+g@mail.gmail.com> <CALT9ZEFY-vsL4-cxta49wP=H7RjDaZk+Wg-ft4m-kVS_=WMsAQ@mail.gmail.com> <20240501022412.85@rfd.leadboat.com> <CAPpHfdsLcQ2w24r9CCNVwaDwKMXabQzG15KwSaaqMAczF1DdVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPpHfdvxK+KSDqopaVdmCHgbO92AN4ibrbiCJ6i6-+g4oma-6Q@mail.gmail.com> <1375614.1715301775@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAPpHfdstoBC7TLsLZ5eKUW7LNHcVo2d5X4msmgsigb7nxiD-5A@mail.gmail.com> <CALT9ZEFS8z2KoZ9omyfVyz-h54DSPP_jLp5Zc!
 3Fzt6g1Fnw9MA@mail.gmail.com> <8635D8B1-45B7-4D67-86C7-D6ECB4F10B11@enterprisedb.com> <CAPpHfduspEtrBN_BrAg90iW1VdoJcdTH7Hnx68GeiEqpAfocpg@mail.gmail.com> <BC582142-AD7E-4591-A541-7578B62DE3D8@enterprisedb.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Fri, 10 May 2024 18:12:57 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1686677.1715391537.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 21:38:57 -0400
Message-ID: <1686679.1715391537@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1686679.1715391537%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Regardless of which of 1..4 you pick, I think it could all do with more =
regression test coverage.

Indeed.  If we have no regression tests that reach this code, it's
folly to touch it at all, but most especially so post-feature-freeze.

I think the *first* order of business ought to be to create some
test cases that reach this area.  Perhaps they'll be too expensive
to incorporate in our regular regression tests, but we could still
use them to investigate Mark's concerns.

			regards, tom lane