| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2017-02-06 03:47:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20170206034724.7rdw7bvr2h43wgyb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-02-05 22:34:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The point is that there's a nontrivial chance of a hasty fix introducing
> worse problems than we fix.
>
> Given the lack of consensus about exactly how to fix this, I'm feeling
> like it's a good idea if whatever we come up with gets some time to age
> awhile in git before we ship it.
Right. And I'm not even convinced that we really know the extent of the
bug; it seems fairly plausible that there's further incidences of this.
There's also the issue that the mechanics in the older backbranches are
different again, because of SnapshotNow.
>> I'm bit a surprised with this position. What do we tell our users now that
>> we know this bug exists?
That we're scheduling a bugfix for the next point release. I don't
think we can truthfully claim that there's no known corruption bugs in
any of the release in the last few years.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2017-02-06 04:00:05 | Re: ParallelFinish-hook of FDW/CSP (Re: Steps inside ExecEndGather) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-06 03:34:34 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |