Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tMjDq-0065zJ-VD for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 07:39:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tMjDn-00BQnQ-Lp for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 07:39:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tMjDn-00BQnI-3o for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 07:39:24 +0000 Received: from mail-oa1-x2a.google.com ([2001:4860:4864:20::2a]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tMjDh-002v7r-Dg for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 07:39:22 +0000 Received: by mail-oa1-x2a.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-29fad34bb62so1630501fac.1 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 23:39:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1734248356; x=1734853156; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HDJn6PoefJqmpxcKDpaU9v6ZDG8bBLv430HYCz/8xfY=; b=FEuyYshrDrUReB5Zh3B7DnXyTfFVAq9GViNEFRJj/QXQCVaOD2H83yNhuFATxZRCLt AiIh+tiyUtcihiIIsgSO+59VcBdD2XBBmfmOgHmy6z4DUdm8wuLoo+YykpVZ6LbgwUfK xtFTzpegOsbRKueNB7izvkaMb0eu1O4bE8lCKzPkt09TwWoxNlRqhumB/uzBMTSCZG8J I0YPRQsGwKMQu9reqiXbynlTAOOS/qkmLmlhyan6V/vyr+VRh0LmzQEw6NGV9EqqGzZB noPLIOUUfT7A6mdhtpBEiLbh+5Rmc4dyBHOjMFoM+toZ+ePZ7apqWMkbaDTPI/P4KAY9 YXLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1734248356; x=1734853156; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HDJn6PoefJqmpxcKDpaU9v6ZDG8bBLv430HYCz/8xfY=; b=fEXgltnWQxk42KIMV7lbuuwi4ho+z4tiLLiQyaSMv2/eZwhFsnYgtjpabGq/fE9eV1 LxqBav2HCnjA5Fy7/tIiQpIfBzeBzD42AVCcIa52I9HWcqXJxGXhErBEGpYcsSQf4Axl 3Iy4RtQbFdobjquI9iVfNbGag4oULCT1f5VNvk2zNjgQ9I3p2lMMAx4yOelTK9PiYi8F +05FW9TZXxIpxvhjggAlRmLBH4dUKFncjE0SPmPhTiSCVOq6Xp3L5miZ97AEXguyjbvL i2cMviEl7M0fAcyO21NiyLN9fQ4zN8WJPSO0nP+PI7DuVWdyuDhXQKzPnC0oRcVjqfDz PyeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YymXtnjiXiSy0HQozy68hn+eB0kf52c5mCjki3If5Ec8wRrBMHB UTys0IFZUSiUnYjTAurgKOrXT7hn6aIbp+/vI729bgz5Z/494JlkdsBZo1PwHwcdY5LFNknDMbd 3qX1G5VjIcPN6ehNXpP+uZzhKc2vf0yV0 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuK9xoGj7OUPeWGGLUI9Wa2vxM41OhUqBuvjGrnm1L+rukPXhRDE50CRB1qLMb lWISDtemq6+3XYF2zMEpH3jG1rlfGgNAzOGR0bpjo+4vXY33vVXlRMh7TdmlXrGdonLi9srfo X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEs4acVFJuAnnqVZynFEjb8FORrWnLJmL8QhTIAq8NUwJtFAL7R7wxD8LlEOR5ltwd4AeMg/eMZqUDZAQFVvY0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b023:b0:296:dded:7c14 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2a3ac914a3fmr3972517fac.36.1734248356119; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 23:39:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ron Johnson Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 02:39:05 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: "a REINDEX operation on an index pg_upgrade'd from a previous release could potentially fail." To: Pgsql-admin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000381b8e06294a2900" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --000000000000381b8e06294a2900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable According to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/12.0/ " In new btree indexes, the maximum index entry length is reduced by eight bytes, to improve handling of duplicate entries (Peter Geoghegan) =C2=A7 This means that a REINDEX operation on an index pg_upgrade'd from a previous release could potentially fail. " Would a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY mitigate that risk, since https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-reindex.html#SQL-REINDEX-CONCURRENTL= Y says "6. The old indexes are dropped"? --=20 Death to , and butter sauce. Don't boil me, I'm still alive. lobster! --000000000000381b8e06294a2900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In new btree indexes, the maximum index entry length is= reduced by eight bytes, to improve handling of duplicate entries (Peter Ge= oghegan) =C2=A7

This means that a REINDEX operation on an index pg_u= pgrade'd from a previous release could potentially fail.
&quo= t;

Would a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY mitigate that risk= , since=C2=A0https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-reindex.h= tml#SQL-REINDEX-CONCURRENTLY says "6.=C2=A0The old indexes are dro= pped"?

-- <= /span>
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.<= div>Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> l= obster!
--000000000000381b8e06294a2900--