Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nret1-0001H4-7X for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 May 2022 12:04:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nresz-0007vy-T0 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 May 2022 12:04:09 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nresz-0007vo-1X for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 May 2022 12:04:09 +0000 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nrest-0000zr-SU for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 May 2022 12:04:08 +0000 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C07C3200903; Thu, 19 May 2022 08:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 19 May 2022 08:04:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1652961839; x=1653048239; bh=q 7GKKFHflT6nDT0Yvy2vWnmmwPPOIMaGpzqk9APYyoA=; b=f/IZuCAx8PCic4G4R Pit6qHLL5M7xzTzHYutDmHGNxGxchaFUsikaeMbAA4ASocdyW8P1fmrsPNSGdL9O +diyu5/WqnVEpoOc1BOlbm4mF10Zw+3Hnw53rZDzh0LogLtVlAllUHpuYjs8R0tX D2txBrKzgO4cYP2p0VhBXH9lhXl4P2F4QmCIRZL3g2zkyXlQXer2P2io7LY+DdNG u9hS2GtH1p+CwEyHHGwQ241V3j5AT5CJgX9gsX3+8X6KGykKGtojyICCRIUMk6x2 0KkxJqisSVP9sE21UtjB/0+O+i+nfQ132sKickxw2uYkq9e70p8SP6TaxMrcZKi/ C6JIA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedriedugdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfggtggugfgjsehtkeertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhvrghr ohcujfgvrhhrvghrrgcuoegrlhhvhhgvrhhrvgesrghlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhgqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefgtdegleeggffftdeiuddufffhveekgfdufeethefgtefh kedvgeejlefhteehvdenucffohhmrghinhepvghnthgvrhhprhhishgvuggsrdgtohhmpd hpohhsthhgrhgvshhqlhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgr mhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhvhhgvrhhrvgesrghlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 19 May 2022 08:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 600DA2A52BD; Thu, 19 May 2022 14:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 14:03:56 +0200 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Michael Paquier Cc: =?utf-8?B?0J/QtdGC0YrRgCDQodC70LDQstC+0LI=?= , PostgreSQL mailing lists Subject: Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY Message-ID: <202205191203.zzmne46ulpbu@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 2022-May-19, Michael Paquier wrote: > Okay, thanks. Something that has changed in this area is the > addition of c98763b, where spurious waits are avoided in some of the > phaese of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. I am wondering if this is related. Hmm, yes, it's definitely possible that it is related. I'll have a look soon. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Once again, thank you and all of the developers for your hard work on PostgreSQL. This is by far the most pleasant management experience of any database I've worked on." (Dan Harris) http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-04/msg00247.php