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
In-reply-to: <161098966261.468.431083803607667410@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <161098966261.468.431083803607667410@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:07:42 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <390004.1611002342.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:39:02 -0500
Message-ID: <390005.1611002342@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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