| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Corruption with IMMUTABLE functions in index expression. |
| Date: | 2021-10-12 03:07:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20211012030758.3jv62bvgzer5cfip@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-10-11 14:59:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Perhaps we could set pg_index.indisvalid to false initially, and if opening an
> > index where pg_index.indisvalid error out with a different error message if
> > TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId(xmin). And then use an inplace update to
> > set indisvalid to true, to avoid the bloat?
>
> I still can't get excited about it ...
Understandable, me neither...
> I doubt we need any code changes beyond changing the indisvalid state.
I was thinking we'd want to throw an error if an index that's being created is
accessed during the index build, rather than just not include it in
planning...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-12 03:21:34 | Re: Corruption with IMMUTABLE functions in index expression. |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2021-10-12 02:33:12 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |