On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:15 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I am thinking about pushing a fix along the lines of the attached
> patch. This preserves the assertion, while avoiding the check in cases
> where it doesn't apply, such as when a dirty snapshot is in use.
Pushed. Thanks.
--
Peter Geoghega
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:00 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> > I think you're right. However, it still seems like we should check
> > that "kitem->indexOffset" is consistent among all of the BTScanPosItem
> > entries that we have for each TID that we believe to be from the same
> > posting list
On 20.03.2020 03:34, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:34 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
During tests, we catched an assertion failure in _bt_killitems() for
posting tuple in unique index:
/* kitem must have matching offnum when heap TIDs match */
Assert(kitem->indexOffset == o
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:34 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> During tests, we catched an assertion failure in _bt_killitems() for
> posting tuple in unique index:
>
> /* kitem must have matching offnum when heap TIDs match */
> Assert(kitem->indexOffset == offnum);
>
> https://github.com/postgre
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:34 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> Unfortunately I cannot attach test and core dump, since they rely on the
> enterprise multimaster extension code.
> Here are some details from the core dump, that I find essential:
>
> Stack is
> _bt_killitems
> _bt_release_current_pos
During tests, we catched an assertion failure in _bt_killitems() for
posting tuple in unique index:
/* kitem must have matching offnum when heap TIDs match */
Assert(kitem->indexOffset == offnum);
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtutils.c#L1809
I str
