Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:08:29 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: =?utf-8?B?0J/QtdGC0YrRgCDQodC70LDQstC+0LI=?= <pet.slavov@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing
 REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Message-ID: <YowwDSko1PkXIrHQ@paquier.xyz>
References: <YoseQAkUMCEvlxhn@paquier.xyz>
 <202205230807.jk6lmduxyi3z@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qWq1VxpcLu2fkMqG"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202205230807.jk6lmduxyi3z@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YowwDSko1PkXIrHQ%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--qWq1VxpcLu2fkMqG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:07:44AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think if this is a big enough deal (and I think it may be) then IMO we
> should revert as you suggest, make an out-of-schedule release, and then
> I can take some time to investigate in more depth and see if the feature
> can be salvaged.=20
>=20
> OTOH if we think an out-of-schedule release is not warranted, then
> reverting right now is not useful; we can make a decision about that
> closer to the next minor release, once we've had time to see if the bug
> can be fixed in some other way that doesn't break the whole feature.

The annoying part is that this can cause silent corruptions for
indexes created with REINDEX and CIC, so most users won't know about
the failure until they see that their application is broken.  And we
are just talking about a btree index here, other index AMs may be
similarly impacted.  So that's rather bad IMHO :/

It seems to me that the problem is around the wait phase after the
validation, where the computation of limitXmin coming from the
snapshot used for the validation ignores now the impact of VACUUM,
hence impacting the timing when the index can be safely used.  It also
looks like it is possible to build an isolation test, where we use a
transaction with a snapshot older than the REINDEX to force it to
wait in the first WaitForOlderSnapshots() call.
--
Michael

--qWq1VxpcLu2fkMqG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=6J3D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qWq1VxpcLu2fkMqG--