| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Петър Славов <pet(dot)slavov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2022-05-30 14:11:39 |
| Message-ID: | 202205301411.ltoz4mf6nfmq@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2022-May-30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Was there anything else running on the system? c98763bf51bf also needs to
> > reverted, of course.
>
> Yeah, I agree that we'd better revert c98763bf for the time being.
> And f9900df on top of that?
Yeah, both commits need to be reverted, since the latter depends
critically on the former. I'll get the revert pushed soon.
> I was trying to think of ways to get an isolation test out of that,
> but that proves to be sort of tricky as we need to manipulate the HOT
> chains after the validation phase has begun with the snapshot from the
> build phase. It is easy to block before the validation transaction
> starts, like in WaitForLockersMultiple() beforehand, though.
Hmm. I suppose for the next try of implementing a feature like this,
we'll definitely want to incorporate some tests that can catch problems
of this sort. But I don't think we need to come up with something right
now.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2022-05-30 14:59:24 | BUG #17504: psql --single-transaction -vON_ERROR_STOP=1 still commits after client-side error |
| Previous Message | Giorgio Saviane | 2022-05-30 11:40:24 | Re: BUG #17449: Disk space not released |