| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 04:17:43 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdP4y1cguS+fqSuB07EfmPe=paa3Mt6-nMob7XWMNRMi=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. Consider that the first time relcahe invalidation occurs while
> computing id_attrs, so now the retry logic will compute the correct
> set of attrs (considering two indexes, if we take the example given by
> Alvaro above.).
I don't quite get that. Since rd_idattr must be already cached at that
point and we don't expect to process a relcache flush between successive
calls to RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap(), we should return a consistent copy
of rd_idattr. But may be I am missing something.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-02-06 04:20:10 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-02-06 04:15:15 | IF [NOT] EXISTS for replication slots |