On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:24:33AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 04:20:42PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 2:00 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > >> [brin_desummarize_range brin_summarize_new_values brin_summarize_range > >> gin_clean_pending_list] currently succeed. I propose to make them emit a > >> DEBUG1 message and return early, like amcheck does, except on !indisready. > >> This would allow users to continue running them on all indexes of the > >> applicable access method. Doing these operations on an > >> indisready&&!indisvalid index is entirely reasonable, since they relate to > >> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE operations. > > Hmm. Still slightly incorrect in some cases? Before being switched > to indisvalid, an index built concurrently may miss some tuples > deleted before the reference snapshot used to build the index was > taken.
The !indisvalid index may be missing tuples, yes. In what way does that make one of those four operations incorrect?
