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 1nw35b-0003rh-RC for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2022 14:43:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nw35a-0005vo-AY for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2022 14:43:18 +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 1nw35Z-0005ve-73 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2022 14:43:18 +0000 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nw35O-0008AQ-Hn for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2022 14:43:16 +0000 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797E53200034; Tue, 31 May 2022 10:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 May 2022 10:43:04 -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=1654008182; x=1654094582; bh=u JuKmhjEZtON5xgOwAXUBWxdFaVnIJMvYw6MoTE8aEA=; b=pf0QXJZN/yilcrf8X 9TsvTLd07VC62Xrw9b5E18H+sTrUazOpbmFEScAV8pkkvaRa+RsY3grGMzTi7wVN lViO0RT+IRtFbm9V40pmNAaHLvdUNEkhwXt0ZqLUm2OGy40AMbeR4ozqY71r/avl /jl2uZpSwY93eAfl4muPp5pWCDwRf0yIacehr5s7pLpzOmYasissvY9SoPIB77RW xt+I6QPA/f7B3Lm5QPizKfZxajCU3urDXfgaALRA6uvcLQ+PrGM1w5eEuP87QMml xhiKJ2E092UwiZF1J9OR+9Do+MIIKVG1xeNflKpBtQIHYsioufaOgqYjOuINKg4i Zm/TA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrkeekgdejlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfggtggugfgjsehtkeertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhvrghr ohcujfgvrhhrvghrrgcuoegrlhhvhhgvrhhrvgesrghlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhgqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvkedtffduffdtffffheffhfejjefhgfeiueeukeejkeff gfdufffhudffffeuveenucffohhmrghinhepvghnthgvrhhprhhishgvuggsrdgtohhmne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlvhhh vghrrhgvsegrlhhvhhdrnhhoqdhiphdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 31 May 2022 10:43:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3EE9E2A0843; Tue, 31 May 2022 16:43:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 16:43:00 +0200 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Christophe Pettus Cc: Bruce Momjian , Michael Paquier , Peter Geoghegan , Robert Haas , Andres Freund , Andrey Borodin , =?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: <202205311443.5xshc44kp7ll@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-26, Christophe Pettus wrote: > Unless we are 100% sure that amcheck will never return a false > negative in this situation, we may have to recommend reindexing > everything. I am not aware of any reason why amcheck would return a false negative. Is there any evidence behind this assertion? If there is none, the recommendation should be to use amcheck on all btree indexes and reindex those that have the problem; and reindex all indexes of other AMs that could have been reindexed or created concurrently in 14beta1 or later (implying: an index that was created in 13 and pg_upgraded but not touched afterwards is not at risk). -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/