| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Donghang Lin <donghanglin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bt_index_parent_check and concurrently build indexes |
| Date: | 2025-06-03 04:24:10 |
| Message-ID: | aD546ku49_7LsncZ@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 05:40:18PM -0700, Donghang Lin wrote:
> Your finding is right on point! We recently used bt_index_parent_check to
> verify concurrently built indexes in a concurrent workload,
> bt_index_parent_check often gave such false positive error.
Good thing is that this is tracked in the CF app:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5438/
Peter, could you look at that? amcheck and btree are both in your
area of expertise. Getting this error because of routine CIC or
REINDEX CONCURRENTLY runs is annoying.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-06-03 04:27:15 | Re: Encapsulate io_uring process count calculation |
| Previous Message | Japin Li | 2025-06-03 04:16:21 | Encapsulate io_uring process count calculation |