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 1lxJiO-00013z-Q6 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:36:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lxJiN-00089i-LT for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:36:03 +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 1lxJiN-00089a-Eq for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:36:03 +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 1lxJiL-0003NK-Bd for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:36:02 +0000 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1DBC320085B; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 21:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 26 Jun 2021 21:36:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paquier.xyz; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=CWzQOw4HBex6IVxJCr+4tk9/5XL ad9aZolCrxTib+Qo=; b=AiikQSmkshtaInK2MM9MLlV/GLMLAxvpTmvNDQSNqXP RyMes+k1L1mW2dqNT00t+IzTJtcnOesZZpDTmtqRWDa3vjd5MOT5hF0P4ZIkFhQd XFf1nGp7b5V5kQ9peNv+0KksrGq0fGTnWE2hOzUqSqA3yIFmHx4UcQAWlehDlbcF aJIjriPxpiSQ90/4sdYpQh85ZF/0xjnew+nPUdFLkZ9GcG+9Qmf4ChY1IqaeBdW8 8iuhY97Q+9qW3gG9XP7L1s5S3Ooq/RrCbGQ4Jud5nQ7/qj12yCi8cvK97dJWlksd yY201zqUTkDVSPoqZqjH62juf4QQbFxMHQ75qbye/3g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=CWzQOw 4HBex6IVxJCr+4tk9/5XLad9aZolCrxTib+Qo=; b=VA6kh6JEe1zWBIKDCG7UJr Pd5lk29VN8UyCXo5Fu5cvtw44lTnB2WqUv8iEYPkBsfCnKL8rXew0wUsfo67mWyf vGFq6hh5yPxMMUhUQUT88OFJloEqLruheOc5/iKUAbsuQt7czA0nHaccaddupHXl 9ZO+GwX3wdEENaNRoqP11M0AOmdcoU7fOjkXPsuNUZLPLltty4VMhBrCmXeKIcTW 7mSXwZLKO1Mh5Jl6POgwMrMftJ53nK1dpbRdsB69I8m1Hge/EdZPJSILq781gj3j vxd92rIgGvymJYz5wt5XK0J6e0dtFWg4hfmDhO4jVbTOL/xdPuzw+eHQenAh16ug == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeehuddggeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne gfrhhlucfvnfffucdljedtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddt vdenucfhrhhomhepofhitghhrggvlhcurfgrqhhuihgvrhcuoehmihgthhgrvghlsehprg hquhhivghrrdighiiiqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvgeduuefhtdeuleettdevjeeh heeiveeuieegleetgeeljeelieeuieehgeevhfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmihgthhgrvghlsehprghquhhivghrrdighiii X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 21:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:35:49 +0900 From: Michael Paquier To: Andrey Lepikhov Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Assertion on create index concurrently Message-ID: References: <9b905019-5297-7372-0ad2-e1a4bb66a719@postgrespro.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="B75EFf4/4TIg1cWu" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9b905019-5297-7372-0ad2-e1a4bb66a719@postgrespro.ru> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --B75EFf4/4TIg1cWu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 09:48:45PM +0300, Andrey Lepikhov wrote: > I found one annoying assertion in the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY operation. > It will happen if you add into WHERE part of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY so= me > function that will make transactional update (see an example in the attac= hed > patch). >=20 > It looks like a hack, but it lead to assertion and restart of the instanc= e, > that isn't good. > I suggest to perform error, not assertion in this case (see the patch). >=20 > This problem affects PG 9.6 - 13. The master branch was fixed 9 months ago > by commit 83158f7, that made this operation transactional, but still. This looks like a good argument for back-patching 83158f7 all the way down, as 813fb03 exists since 9.4. Any thoughts from others? -- Michael --B75EFf4/4TIg1cWu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAmDX1fUACgkQnvQgOdby QH2YcQ/+J9gXZzvZJTyW2Nxxw4yAFyNuBWmubu1SFkLQ0soGCKpZSFQzxV0qT8JK nZ5wrVMFb1p8gILiCy0TIJPW83UVQlWlTQUwd6w3+B01CMfJRItU7ndBnYFYdWQX bFtKhgGwMUxdsKqJr/w1SPIWrX5AZGWtiUYx7GV9d94kkLq79PJs/BoZWqetg9eF a6/U/IuRg9tfMq34XYCHxKMkRkJCdJc2LSTrhL+qqLLvhMZKhUrwiFQ1krXpkOh4 XT2pSFsg42zEviBI5BoKaaiHwWD4jL4AtoSMFIO9dXJbnlyHZQfk82A6e0tOizTi +GFNC4h4T0xGfpm6J9/Iz0M+X/L+UZknLK3L9zKB/H7CCoFX4waxG1AyNVnAE47L +9fFKs/IwLSWTrUi5mQcM1sVhTYC8uoTYjmRChekXhNB9LPHceVdAI22bj3cDXWo z10WSceMKxybycdH+OJjKR4/sT8/kSqWA6p2UOn8jyh2AK+L7BHtd7aPyURHtUJ3 bBQlco52Sk9+1X21PhRVfLob8t1pU1hmgjHQ/CZj/Bpfh3SaDhh1c6tE5kZb+8TJ V5Cp8M+uvPBg7mSJQ+AkC69nAFWkjH5IkBTFYlIUhQETOIqlf7QJCIYj0sw2W8BJ 2Hdk5y1uSgCFICyQ2i49jPfJGGEaOza4oHrlSccv73ro/zrz9o4= =FJgr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --B75EFf4/4TIg1cWu--