Re: cache lookup failed dropping public schema with trgm index

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Wyatt Alt <wyatt(dot)alt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: cache lookup failed dropping public schema with trgm index
Date: 2023-08-21 22:55:28
Message-ID: ZOPrYNyJO95YItPp@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 03:36:10PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> It also seems to work without even involving a drop schema. Just dropping
> pg_trgm with cascade is sufficient.

FWIW, after a bisect I can see that 911e7020 is the origin of the
failure (`git bisect start b5d69b7 9e1c9f9` based on two merge-bases).

> Now, this isn't a real issue in practice (without such a debugging statement,
> which likely can't work in some cases), but I strongly suspect that it
> indicates a scheduling order issue that's more widespread. Despite, I think,
> correct dependencies, we end up with a topologically inconsistent drop
> order. There aren't any cycles in the directed dependency graph from what I
> can see.

Yeah, guess so. I was first betting on a missing shared inval here.
Now note that for example, this command works:
psql -v ON_ERROR_STOP=1 -c 'create table foo(t text); create extension pg_trgm; create index on foo using gist(t gist_trgm_ops);create index on foo using gist(t gist_trgm_ops); drop schema public cascade;'
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Wyatt Alt 2023-08-21 23:13:57 Re: cache lookup failed dropping public schema with trgm index
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-08-21 22:36:10 Re: cache lookup failed dropping public schema with trgm index