From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
cc: Thomas Munro <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: <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>
Comments: In-reply-to Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
	message dated "Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:55:00 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2528429.1702440277.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 23:04:37 -0500
Message-ID: <2528430.1702440277@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2528430.1702440277%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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