| 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: | 2024-12-02 20:59:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznOtpQ=Pb7cO2ppigR+UDpTTuRUmiND042mwM1P3pdLNw@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.
BTW, if you change the test case to use the default B-Tree index AM
(by removing "USING GIST"), you'll see that VACUUM blocks on acquiring
a cleanup lock (and so the test just times out). The problem is that
GiST VACUUM just doesn't care about cleanup locks/TID recycling safety
-- though clearly it should.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alena Rybakina | 2024-12-02 20:59:58 | Re: Vacuum statistics |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-12-02 20:56:17 | Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan. |