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 1nt36c-0003EM-Ac for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:07:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nt36a-0008Pb-Uj for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:07:56 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nt36Z-0008PS-UZ for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:07:56 +0000 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nt36S-000839-UG for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:07:54 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24925C0107; Mon, 23 May 2022 04:07:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 May 2022 04:07:46 -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=1653293266; x=1653379666; bh=K +0/rL3MwEs9pPLpChFvY6EPcQ+8qw999hW2r8PInpY=; b=OZqQv3ZP7gQTbkI7P XODAnaKW6p6GrsM6uc19yClIHganGH0EOV3WclpLWJcpnyRbB5i3JyFXShd434ep Z0rbz0kWaLq5ZL3dTKpOfnmkKcVBG+s7OtJLYfxy5a+Esuzov1po6tOc2TAjHV9N CBAihrAKePeWD0yVQXpqwT4hjPEEk9TaXszbmGFYs9So9jboj3DsBKG+CiU+NFZg tCVIHiLIpUXQRS/CmTMGNN2a8POhFT1Qiw3Dhel6souGi8GGOqq5o6YOw3ZPEeUq DQ8eNpXz7A3FpFpoosXr94BQniakOF2IfheDXFXvVv0eKSHuWd1Akxru9xBke3i4 Gu+ag== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrjedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrh hofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghi lhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurh epfffhvfevuffkgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlvhgrrhhoucfj vghrrhgvrhgruceorghlvhhhvghrrhgvsegrlhhvhhdrnhhoqdhiphdrohhrgheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepvdektdffudfftdffffehfffhjeejhffgieeuueekjeekfffgudff hfduffffueevnecuffhomhgrihhnpegvnhhtvghrphhrihhsvggusgdrtghomhenucevlh hushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhvhhgvrhhr vgesrghlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 May 2022 04:07:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 49D832A1C21; Mon, 23 May 2022 10:07:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 10:07:44 +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: <202205230807.jk6lmduxyi3z@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-23, Michael Paquier wrote: > It took me some time to write a script to bisect that, but I have been > able to establish a correlation with d9d0762 that causes VACUUM to > ignore transactions doing some concurrent reindex operations. I would > not be surprised to see that this is also related to some of the > reports we have seen lately with reindex operations. There was one > with logical replication and missing records from a primary key, I > recall. > > For the stable branches of 14 and 15, I would tend to play it safe and > revert d9d0762. I have to admit that f9900df and c98763b stress me a > bit, and that we have not have anticipated all the ramifications of > this set of changes. Thoughts? Wow, thanks for researching that over the weekend. I think if this is a big enough deal (and I think it may be) then IMO we should revert as you suggest, make an out-of-schedule release, and then I can take some time to investigate in more depth and see if the feature can be salvaged. OTOH if we think an out-of-schedule release is not warranted, then reverting right now is not useful; we can make a decision about that closer to the next minor release, once we've had time to see if the bug can be fixed in some other way that doesn't break the whole feature. Opinions? -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Saca el libro que tu religión considere como el indicado para encontrar la oración que traiga paz a tu alma. Luego rebootea el computador y ve si funciona" (Carlos Duclós)