BUG #17574: Attaching an invalid index to partition head make head index invalid forever

From: PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: BUG #17574: Attaching an invalid index to partition head make head index invalid forever
Date: 2022-08-04 23:42:54
Message-ID: 17574-0e82148f7b16e7d4@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference: 17574
Logged by: Maxim Boguk
Email address: maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com
PostgreSQL version: 14.4
Operating system: Linux
Description:

If you (operator error or script error) attach an invalid index to head of
partition index - it will make partition head index invalid forver.
I found no way to fix situation except create completely new head index and
build/attach new indexes on all partitions.

Minimal test case:
--prepare data
create table test (id integer) partition by range(id);
create table test_part_1000000 partition of test for values from (0) to
(1000000);
insert into test_part_1000000 select (random()*999999)::integer from
generate_series(1, 10000000);
create index test_id_key on only test(id);

--so far ok index invalid
\d+ test
Partitioned table "public.test"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Compression |
Stats target | Description
--------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+-------------+--------------+-------------
id | integer | | | | plain | |
|
Partition key: RANGE (id)
Indexes:
"test_id_key" btree (id) INVALID
Partitions: test_part_1000000 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (1000000)

--make an invalid index on partitiomn
create index CONCURRENTLY test_part_1000000_id_key on
test_part_1000000(id);
^CCancel request sent
ERROR: canceling statement due to user request

--attach an invalid index ??? ok/not ok? is it should be allowed at all?
alter index test_id_key attach partition test_part_1000000_id_key;

--test_id_key invalid (expected)
postgres=# \d+ test
Partitioned table "public.test"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Compression |
Stats target | Description
--------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+-------------+--------------+-------------
id | integer | | | | plain | |
|
Partition key: RANGE (id)
Indexes:
"test_id_key" btree (id) INVALID
Partitions: test_part_1000000 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (1000000)

--try to fix
reindex index CONCURRENTLY test_id_key;

--no effect still invalid
postgres=# \d+ test
Partitioned table "public.test"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Compression |
Stats target | Description
--------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+-------------+--------------+-------------
id | integer | | | | plain | |
|
Partition key: RANGE (id)
Indexes:
"test_id_key" btree (id) INVALID
Partitions: test_part_1000000 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (1000000)

--try to fix even more seriously
reindex index test_id_key;

--still invalid
postgres=# \d+ test
Partitioned table "public.test"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Compression |
Stats target | Description
--------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+-------------+--------------+-------------
id | integer | | | | plain | |
|
Partition key: RANGE (id)
Indexes:
"test_id_key" btree (id) INVALID
Partitions: test_part_1000000 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (1000000)

--try other way around
reindex index test_part_1000000_id_key;
--and again invalid on head
postgres=# \d+ test
Partitioned table "public.test"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Compression |
Stats target | Description
--------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+-------------+--------------+-------------
id | integer | | | | plain | |
|
Partition key: RANGE (id)
Indexes:
"test_id_key" btree (id) INVALID

PS: What happen in practice - attaching invalid index to head of huge (many
TB) partitioned table.

Regards,
Maxim

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-08-05 00:47:57 Re: Excessive number of replication slots for 12->14 logical replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-08-04 22:37:01 Re: BUG #17573: timestamptz casting precision goes down as the year goes up