| From: | Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2025-12-08 11:34:00 |
| Message-ID: | CADzfLwXDS7QfJ6=vbWBQ2w-pATwR+3x60iRPXfj7eGWd21FemQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, Álvaro!
On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:58 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> wrote:
> Rereading this -- did you mean to propose that a possible fix was to
> remove the "invalid arbiter index list" error? I had understood
> something different.
Yes, it was the initial idea.
> Your idea downthread of changing the way that check works (so that we
> don't throw an error in this case, but we continue to double-check that
> the arbiter list is sensible) sounds reasonable to me. Do you want to
> propose a specific check for it?
I think the next logic is correct:
* for each IS indisvalid arbiter in the parent table we should have AT
LEAST ONE compatible indisvalid pair in the partition (we may have
multiple or a few more ready-only)
* for each NOT indisvalid arbiter in parent - nothing is expected
from partition
I'll try to create a patch with such later.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-12-08 11:45:37 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-12-08 11:29:53 | Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart |