| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM |
| Date: | 2017-10-31 13:59:33 |
| Message-ID: | 17970.1509458373@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, we're still missing an understanding of why we didn't see it
>> before; the inadequate locking was surely there before.
> Because 24992c6d has added a check on the offset number by using
> PageIndexTupleDeleteNoCompact() in brin_doupdate() making checks
> tighter, no?
No, I don't see how it's tighter. The old code matched supplied
offnum(s) against the indexes of not-unused items, and then after
that loop it complained if they weren't all matched. So it should
also have failed, albeit with a different error message, if it were
passed an offnum corresponding to a no-longer-live tuple.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-10-31 14:00:27 | Re: Remove secondary checkpoint |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-10-31 13:47:32 | Re: Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath |