On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:16:04 -0300
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Nov-05, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> > On 11/5/20 6:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > There are recent changes in vacuum for temp tables (commit
> > > 94bc27b57680?) that would maybe make this stable enough, without
> > > having
On 2020-Nov-05, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 11/5/20 6:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > There are recent changes in vacuum for temp tables (commit 94bc27b57680?)
> > that would maybe make this stable enough, without having to have the CIC
> > there. At least, I tried it locally a few times and it ap
On 11/5/20 6:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Nov-04, Tomas Vondra wrote:
The first test is fairly trivial - it simply builds index on toasted data
and then shows how an insert and select fail. There's a caveat, that this
requires a DELETE + VACUUM, and the VACUUM actually has to cleanup
On 2020-Nov-04, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> The first test is fairly trivial - it simply builds index on toasted data
> and then shows how an insert and select fail. There's a caveat, that this
> requires a DELETE + VACUUM, and the VACUUM actually has to cleanup the rows.
> So there must be no concurren
On 11/4/20 2:05 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
As pointed out in [1], BRIN is not properly handling toasted data, which
may easily lead to index tuples referencing TOAST-ed values. Which is
clearly wrong - it's trivial to trigger failues after a DELETE.
Attached is a patch that aims to fix this -
Hi,
As pointed out in [1], BRIN is not properly handling toasted data, which
may easily lead to index tuples referencing TOAST-ed values. Which is
clearly wrong - it's trivial to trigger failues after a DELETE.
Attached is a patch that aims to fix this - AFAIK the brin_form_tuple
was simply miss
