From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: nik@postgres.ai
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18244: Corruption in indexes involving whole-row expressions
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 23:04:37 -0500
Message-ID: <2528430.1702440277@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c37d4184c476a15ad4c488d272bdc95ea7b0ff49.camel@cybertec.at>
References: <18244-8a7897de2acd5a08@postgresql.org>
<f577abdc489e75a0b62f0648829d633d75ff8d95.camel@cybertec.at>
<CA+hUKGJPxjaD3d_qYrHPxHLS_=ktVMFK7O-+9RgTBzQUTB9q6A@mail.gmail.com>
<c37d4184c476a15ad4c488d272bdc95ea7b0ff49.camel@cybertec.at>
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> Should we forbid composite types in index declarations? Sounds posssible,
> but very restrictive.
That would make a lot of people very sad, I fear.
I think a minimum answer could be to document that you might need to
REINDEX such indexes after a change in the composite type. We could
perhaps try to be more proactive, say by marking such indexes invalid.
I think though that that would have deadlock problems as well as race
conditions. Perhaps best to leave it at "reindex when necessary",
especially in view of the tiny number of reports to date.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, thomas.munro@gmail.com, nik@postgres.ai, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18244: Corruption in indexes involving whole-row expressions
In-Reply-To: <2528430.1702440277@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox