| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Петър Славов <pet(dot)slavov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2022-05-24 02:19:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=eJnkcLpgDhHzU=vz5Fu58HJxJB_Gt094Mx_L+6rD3_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 6:20 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > And I observe that commenting out condition in following code fixes the test.
> > //if (!(statusFlags & PROC_IN_SAFE_IC))
> > h->data_oldest_nonremovable =
> > TransactionIdOlder(h->data_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
>
> Well, by doing so, I think that you are just making the CIC/REINDEX
> wait again until the index is safe to use, but we want to skip this
> wait as of the optimization done in d9d0762.
Uh...isn't that exactly the point that Andrey made himself, in posting
the snippet?
You seem to be addressing this PROC_IN_SAFE_IC snippet as if Andrey
formally proposed it as a bugfix, which seems like an odd
interpretation to me. It seems pretty clear to me that Andrey was just
making an observation, in case it helped with debugging.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | operations i | 2022-05-24 02:20:56 | How is this possible "publication does not exist" |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-05-24 01:20:02 | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY |