Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 15:54:08 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
	=?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: <YpRqEBsFui+lzGj9@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoYP7BnHXTEoJRUnOuie2J05Qo8ti5mnE2u-1c4Hk+8zJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202205251643.2py5jjpaw7wy@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20220527231332.jwvrx6b3ytzt5snv@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <A4F69174-AEC8-4108-BD32-CF201E56AF3E@yandex-team.ru>
 <20220528070219.kbj527dx2sxmuomi@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <4B1BA5BF-37EC-4EE7-AB3B-4C4D95A8059A@yandex-team.ru>
 <20220528193413.cvhno3ky4tikuiqo@alap3.anarazel.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="52ale9g7oPVyzXtM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220528193413.cvhno3ky4tikuiqo@alap3.anarazel.de>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YpRqEBsFui%2BlzGj9%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--52ale9g7oPVyzXtM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 12:34:13PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've not been able to reproduce this issue. Even after increasing the num=
ber
> of clients and transactions, and running the test a number of times. With
> d9d0762 reverted, the problem doesn't happen anymore for me.

Neither was I able to reproduce this issue after a couple of hours
making my laptop hotter, using either the TAP tests or some equivalent
manual tests, and the revert of d9d0762 helps.

> Any chance you hit this with d9d0762 reverted? It's easy to e.g. revert a=
nd
> run the tests without recreating the temp-install, to reduce cycle times.
>=20
> Was there anything else running on the system? c98763bf51bf also needs to
> reverted, of course.

Yeah, I agree that we'd better revert c98763bf for the time being.
And f9900df on top of that?

I was trying to think of ways to get an isolation test out of that,
but that proves to be sort of tricky as we need to manipulate the HOT
chains after the validation phase has begun with the snapshot from the
build phase.  It is easy to block before the validation transaction
starts, like in WaitForLockersMultiple() beforehand, though.
--
Michael

--52ale9g7oPVyzXtM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAmKUahAACgkQnvQgOdby
QH2wuQ/+NUg42+2Ize+UNTqrp1WsyTu5GAMpQbE/VYhgN6aoWO244PRAzPb4njmO
c3gglW+0b5FAZgx8pM2IL9SdBOzKKdtPCWwLDFZdVYj4DBf1EGlCLQEHmtbcJMG8
1cAlcSIIGOjIHid8l42fno+Ca2e9D0+vyQIruJoShGmytsiZ7r0PaI8OjoBsufVT
HUls8xv0Tr1fee4+kE+hYlqfq519htPdwNzCCk7mAX1Dom697NN3Wvp6FjZXzzyw
yvmhT1LyUh5uG7C7f6RA2tkqNyPnUp4XdYqzVEs+hTfuKS9xgLuddyOlshfixr6a
dcljI+FiXjs2OWQjYSjMg368vpGkFpA1kWbkX7H3I3UPidud8Tmi87116jEjEssa
pHt/ar/sGO5cbaoop4iWYgHdbDFxtR2hIVjsQf6X6B0fx5u3RnW3bu13FK5N6w94
Sy5doJXH5W+nNb921CxUInxn/QDdc/hxB13rbUhmL0Zryumqtpw1CKKar++wlHUW
ZZ6XJP//F9n5UGMMqqxBZJOt4VkJZd53Q0AgcghyaKUlByaWPwj5jyjqCXTFJGur
WRMTiym+5+2VGstdQxDOiPkRTspN9av9hSbhJRH0KXbnp/yi3t5ycaCy+sqPafnA
S9pzU1dPBMLPR7nti1Zd+sZo6xGOP7+r4VKz+/RsfB8gO5rw2i4=
=EMn8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--52ale9g7oPVyzXtM--