On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 03:37:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I guess so. We periodically get reports of the non-assert
> failure, and this would let us issue a more on-point error message.
> I'm slightly worried about the extra cost, but typically
> pendingReindexedIndexes should be empty or at least short, so it's
> probably negligible.
An index expression that calls a function doing a scan of its parent
table is a funky case for sure, but perhaps f5a465f1a074 would have
been better with a test?
--
Michael