From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17959: amcheck fails to find a matching index tuple for an invisible heap tuple |
Date: | 2023-06-05 16:20:54 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznSJW4_YzRf85qny39E2g=XOekA+k9u+RQavPj_tYO1Fw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 12:29 AM PG Bug reporting form
<noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> SELECT ctid, * FROM pg_depend WHERE refclassid = 0x0a37 AND refobjid =
> 0x4036 AND refobjsubid = 0
> doesn't return any rows.
>
> Shouldn't amcheck ignore invisible tuples?
It should -- so there must be a bug. This is a system catalog index,
so I wonder if this issue is in any way related to this known issue:
(I've been meaning to get around to finally fixing it.)
Admittedly this is a fairly wild guess -- the details don't really
match. Even still, the fact that this is a system catalog index seems
very unlikely to be incidental to the problem. There are some
significant differences between how system indexes and other indexes
are built in heapam_index_build_range_scan(). Those differences seem
like they could easily be relevant.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-06-05 16:27:46 | Re: BUG #17959: amcheck fails to find a matching index tuple for an invisible heap tuple |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-06-05 16:00:34 | Re: BUG #17946: LC_MONETARY & DO LANGUAGE plperl - BUG |