From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18499: Reindexing spgist index concurrently triggers Assert("TransactionIdIsValid(state->myXid)") |
Date: | 2024-06-16 23:24:10 |
Message-ID: | Zm90GkbGq16gjJy0@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 06:52:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, a different line of attack could be to not generate redirects
> at all during REINDEX CONCURRENTLY: on the basis of this argument,
> we don't need them. So that would look roughly similar to the tests
> that skip making redirects when isBuild is true, and it'd allow
> keeping the assertion in spgFormDeadTuple, and it'd save some
> usually-trifling amount of work in the next VACUUM. However, I'm
> not sure there's a nice way for spginsert() to know whether it's
> being invoked in REINDEX CONCURRENTLY or a normal INSERT/UPDATE
> query. Can we trust indexInfo->ii_Concurrent for that?
I am not sure to understand the redirection part for spgist, but
except if I am missing something, we already rely on ii_Concurrent for
other index AMs like BRIN paths to check if we are dealing with a
concurrent build path or not. index_concurrently_build() is used
by both CIC and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, where the flag is set after a
BuildIndexInfo().
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-06-16 23:28:10 | Re: error "can only drop stats once" brings down database |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-16 22:52:52 | Re: BUG #18499: Reindexing spgist index concurrently triggers Assert("TransactionIdIsValid(state->myXid)") |