On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 06:05:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> 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. > > Thanks for the input, guys. What do you think of > > Avoid writing an invalid empty btree index page in the unlikely case > that a failure occurs while processing INCLUDEd columns during a page > split (Peter Geoghegan) > > The invalid page would not affect normal index operations, but it > might cause failures in subsequent VACUUMs. If that has happened to > one of your indexes, recover by reindexing the index.
Looks good.
