Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-10-11 14:59:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I doubt we need any code changes beyond changing the indisvalid state.
> I was thinking we'd want to throw an error if an index that's being created is
> accessed during the index build, rather than just not include it in
>
Hi,
On 2021-10-11 14:59:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Perhaps we could set pg_index.indisvalid to false initially, and if opening
> > an
> > index where pg_index.indisvalid error out with a different error message if
> > TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId(xmin). And then
Andres Freund writes:
> Perhaps we could set pg_index.indisvalid to false initially, and if opening an
> index where pg_index.indisvalid error out with a different error message if
> TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId(xmin). And then use an inplace update to
> set indisvalid to true, to avoid the
Hi,
On 2021-10-11 12:27:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> While that could be argued to be a bug, I share David's lack of interest in
> fixing it, because I do not believe that there are any cases where a
> function that accesses an index's subject table is really going to be
> immutable.
> To prevent
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:27 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. What is happening is that the function's SELECT on the subject
> table is trying to examine the not-yet-valid new index. While that could
> be argued to be a bug, I share David's lack of interest in fixing it,
> because I do not believe tha
Tomas Vondra writes:
> True, but I can't reproduce it. So either the build is broken in some
> way, or perhaps there's something else going on. What would be quite
> helpful is a backtrace showing why the error was triggered. i.e. set a
> breakpoint on the ereport in mdread().
It reproduced as
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Monday, October 11, 2021, Prabhat Sahu
> wrote:
>> While using IMMUTABLE functions in index expression, we are getting below
>> corruption on HEAD.
> That function is not actually immutable (the system doesn’t check whether
> your claim of immutability and the fu
On 10/11/21 18:08, Andrey Borodin wrote:
11 окт. 2021 г., в 20:47, David G. Johnston
написал(а):
On Monday, October 11, 2021, Prabhat Sahu wrote:
While using IMMUTABLE functions in index expression, we are getting below
corruption on HEAD.
That function is not actually immutable (the
> 11 окт. 2021 г., в 20:47, David G. Johnston
> написал(а):
>
> On Monday, October 11, 2021, Prabhat Sahu
> wrote:
> While using IMMUTABLE functions in index expression, we are getting below
> corruption on HEAD.
>
> That function is not actually immutable (the system doesn’t check whethe
On Monday, October 11, 2021, Prabhat Sahu
wrote:
>
> While using IMMUTABLE functions in index expression, we are getting below
> corruption on HEAD.
>
That function is not actually immutable (the system doesn’t check whether
your claim of immutability and the function definition match, its up to
10 matches
Mail list logo
