On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > To me, this text implies a cautious DBA should amcheck every index. Reading > > the thread[1], I no longer think that. It's enough to monitor that VACUUM > > doesn't start failing persistently on any index. I suggest replacing this > > release note text with something like the following: > > > > Avoid writing erroneous btree index data that does not change query > > results > > but causes VACUUM to abort with "failed to re-find parent key". Affected > > indexes are rare; REINDEX fixes them. > > > > (I removed "key truncation during a page split" as being too technical for > > release notes.) > > I agree that this isn't terribly significant in general. Your proposed > wording seems better than what we have now, but a reference to INCLUDE > indexes also seems like a good idea. They are the only type of index > that could possibly have the issue with page deletion/VACUUM becoming > confused.
If true, that's important to mention, yes.
