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 1nvkmJ-00072X-Oc for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 May 2022 19:10:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nvkmI-0002f6-Nb for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 May 2022 19:10:10 +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 1nvkmI-0002ev-Eq for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 May 2022 19:10:10 +0000 Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.25]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nvkmG-0007S0-9Y for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 May 2022 19:10:09 +0000 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36003200941; Mon, 30 May 2022 15:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 30 May 2022 15:10:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=anarazel.de; h= cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1653937806; x=1654024206; bh=BvXsGCG/2M dY5/gT2D+tHJ2PYtH47FBU1aJsm8+Mr3g=; b=rQ46dyAggt3xQVFbhBdQlBR4bX i+XEteleCPh0V87qMTpiOVcq6sTH4xJ/a3k1aaL1n4wALWX/MftxN0PUhMTYxObM hYRWb8QpTS1joJhaZ6OUVROZHAbTlmJTiGVTGOvddIQTzRMJSdgPX9mMYDp4ymzQ Br0Yp/xQ/QKFWt8iSGDvXBLeA+9qXqIPdlaGZfgTzS983/orA3wORUEUv/6CjQaC +8bT9QLpal/80HncpHFB35JhsAgRJufkI/Sxr0sWSv7BbXn5rIxRHyqx0bDCp5Zt Q1flReP04qA5GCFIFbgpoMLhsmHnSBDqmB71lKaP3rIOZj7GJlB0aHdNG2/Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references: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=1653937806; x=1654024206; bh=BvXsGCG/2MdY5/gT2D+tHJ2PYtH4 7FBU1aJsm8+Mr3g=; b=ml8QdZnWFFCyXjUJnJvqUa7mSV0831Rbvks4QLVe9vVi 8kIILhvaWK9YkpY68sj5Ikkgm5PKUfyXgmwxrEbxJWcP5HzHYvGJ9QH0RnTtNEC7 vluPCxcMZJGjrK4qYECl6BpaE7YXFuQaTIgWDn6hIR9HKtDUfl4QJ3dPfN+d6Tos vEeBOdyPBNGaubYanTjnB6tdY4rY9E7Ie3nbGUzow3YhvsGkQ9qxB/TeRN7SbrJ8 olRwvNPa7jhfZmWAj2TJQ1aBO+Oncs0pu0zMGMoQZOdx7+QbFrlUxqJbtJ6Pplst Jn8A0XJVv/AFcYUHHoLhOxBhh/BOcDN0doD7u/zaww== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrkeeigddufeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomheptehnughr vghsucfhrhgvuhhnugcuoegrnhgurhgvshesrghnrghrrgiivghlrdguvgeqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepvdfffeevhfetveffgeeiteefhfdtvdffjeevhfeuteegleduheetvedu ieettddunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh eprghnughrvghssegrnhgrrhgriigvlhdruggv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 30 May 2022 15:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 12:10:04 -0700 From: Andres Freund To: Michael Paquier Cc: Andrey Borodin , Alvaro Herrera , Robert Haas , Peter Geoghegan , =?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: <20220530191004.oc7kugjyn4isghti@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <202205251643.2py5jjpaw7wy@alvherre.pgsql> <20220527231332.jwvrx6b3ytzt5snv@alap3.anarazel.de> <20220528070219.kbj527dx2sxmuomi@alap3.anarazel.de> <4B1BA5BF-37EC-4EE7-AB3B-4C4D95A8059A@yandex-team.ru> <20220528193413.cvhno3ky4tikuiqo@alap3.anarazel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 2022-05-30 15:54:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yeah, I agree that we'd better revert c98763bf for the time being. > And f9900df on top of that? Well, f9900df needs to be reverted, because it caused the problem at hand, and is ontop of c98763bf... > I was trying to think of ways to get an isolation test out of that, > but that proves to be sort of tricky as we need to manipulate the HOT > chains after the validation phase has begun with the snapshot from the > build phase. It is easy to block before the validation transaction > starts, like in WaitForLockersMultiple() beforehand, though. I think it's ok if we have a heuristic test for this kind of thing. It sometimes can even be good, because it means we'll get different schedulings over time, hitting "unknown" bugs. Greetings, Andres Freund