| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Hans Buschmann <buschmann(at)nidsa(dot)net>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx |
| Date: | 2023-10-24 01:06:01 |
| Message-ID: | 462249.1698109561@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 5:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Separately, I wonder if index_unchanged_by_update should actually just
>>> always give the hint with a non-HOT update, regardless of the
>>> specifics for each index/its columns -- just like on the v14 branch.
>> I'm confused. Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of "unchanged"?
> Well, in practice "indexUnchanged = true" means "do bottom-up deletion
> if it's the only way to avoid a page split". The justification is that
> the incoming tuple is "logically unchanged" (actually it's more
> complicated than that, but that's our starting point).
But doesn't the need for a non-HOT update show that the tuple *was*
changed --- in index-relevant columns, even? Maybe I'm still not
understanding exactly what condition we're detecting.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-10-24 01:23:51 | Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-24 00:53:12 | Re: Variable substitution in jsonb functions fails for jsonpath operator like_regex |