From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 'ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple' from 'ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION' on parent index |
Date: | 2023-07-12 06:08:05 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sVL=PYXYOmpntQQ=VTzgnsQ2RvEF4GYF1GJVXQMAtYBQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > While working recently on what has led to cfc43ae and fc55c7f, I
> > really got the feeling that there could be some command sequences that
> > lacked some CCIs (or CommandCounterIncrement calls) to make sure that
> > the catalog updates are visible in any follow-up steps in the same
> > transaction.
>
> Wait a minute. The validation of a partitioned index uses a copy of
> the pg_index tuple from the relcache, which be out of date:
> newtup = heap_copytuple(partedIdx->rd_indextuple);
> ((Form_pg_index) GETSTRUCT(newtup))->indisvalid = true;
But why the recache entry is outdated, does that mean that in the
previous command, we missed registering the invalidation for the
recache entry?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-07-12 07:00:25 | Re: doc: improve the restriction description of using indexes on REPLICA IDENTITY FULL table. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-07-12 06:07:53 | Re: CI and test improvements |