From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: chaodhib@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the doc should mention one particular aspect of partial indexes
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:39:02 -0500
Message-ID: <390005.1611002342@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <161098966261.468.431083803607667410@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <161098966261.468.431083803607667410@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> I think the documentation should mention one particular aspect of b-tree
> partial indexes:
> Say we have a row that satisfy a partial index's predicate. That row will be
> referenced by the partial index. Say now that this row gets updated in such
> a way that the updated row no longer satisfies the predicate. The entry of
> that row in the index (more precisely, the row previous version) is still
> kept in a leaf node of the b-tree until a VACUUM is issued on the index's
> table.
How is this different from the behavior for any other dead row version?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, chaodhib@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the doc should mention one particular aspect of partial indexes
In-Reply-To: <390005.1611002342@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox