| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Kuzmenkov <akuzmenkov(at)timescale(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan. |
| Date: | 2024-12-03 01:22:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkNDeKP8kVmkSKb_=tef26K=ZpptWWCGuhXpdFfmfaJOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 3:56 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I took what you wrote, and repurposed it to prove my old theory about
> GiST index-only scans being broken due to the lack of an appropriate
> interlock against concurrent TID recycling. See the attached patch.
I've moved discussion of this GiST bug over to the old 2021 thread
where I first raised concerns about the issue:
https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=jjiNL9FCh8C1L-GUH15f4WFTWub2x+_NucngcDDcHKw@mail.gmail.com
The GiST bug is actually causally unrelated to the bitmap index scan
bug under discussion, despite the high-level similarity. Seems best to
keep discussion of GiST on its own thread, for that reason.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-12-03 01:36:13 | Re: Remove useless casts to (void *) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-12-03 01:18:14 | Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM? |