Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h7N6O-0007L1-HA for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:33:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h7N6N-0000a0-6l for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:33:03 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h7N6M-0000Vj-UE for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:33:03 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h7N6K-0001jP-Cl for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:33:01 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2MGWvYD005447; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:32:58 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: pgsql-committers Subject: Re: pgsql: Make heap TID a tiebreaker nbtree index column. In-reply-to: References: <13999.1553105283@sss.pgh.pa.us> <24277.1553114810@sss.pgh.pa.us> <16667.1553116435@sss.pgh.pa.us> <17604.1553118255@sss.pgh.pa.us> <17845.1553118645@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8748.1553119737@sss.pgh.pa.us> <21983.1553138224@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:34:22 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5445.1553272377.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:32:57 -0400 Message-ID: <5446.1553272377@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:17 PM Tom Lane wrote: >>> Actually, I'm not sure why it would be fine to revert 7d3bf73ac now. >>> Might the problem actually be the order in which OIDs are originally >>> assigned, or something like that? >> No, because then things would have been unstable before, no? > Perhaps. The cost of being wrong here is trivial anyway. I have > reverted 7d3bf73ac based on the assumption that it's now unnecessary. Apparently, that case is indeed unstable, cf https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=3Dfulmar&dt=3D2019= -03-22%2016%3A15%3A14 I picked up on that because I've also seen it happen on my own devel machine today, but just once --- I then tried to reproduce it, but couldn't in several dozen tries. I'm fairly baffled as to why the output order would be unstable given the sort, and even more as to why the instability didn't emerge before. Any thoughts? regards, tom lane