Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK9C8-0000kF-5j for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:47:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK9C4-0004YN-IC for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:47:28 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK9C4-0004YA-93; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:47:28 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gK9C1-0001wk-Th; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:47:27 +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 wA6LlK47004376; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 16:47:20 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ond=c5=99ej_Bouda?= cc: Alvaro Herrera , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: backend crash on DELETE, reproducible locally In-reply-to: References: <20181106194553.dynhd2xuivo56ymd@alvherre.pgsql> <33d144b9-5208-8d32-7e95-94ed4d2931b8@email.cz> <450.1541535425@sss.pgh.pa.us> <134c09b5-3eb0-bafd-2aeb-f383e1e21b8a@email.cz> <2432.1541538215@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2877.1541538838@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to =?UTF-8?Q?Ond=c5=99ej_Bouda?= message dated "Tue, 06 Nov 2018 22:37:32 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <4374.1541540840.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 16:47:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4375.1541540840@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk =?UTF-8?Q?Ond=c5=99ej_Bouda?= writes: >> Ondřej, as a short-term workaround you could prevent the crash >> by setting that index's recheck_on_update property to false. > Thanks for the tip. I am unsuccessful using it, though: > # ALTER INDEX public.schedulecard_overlap_idx SET (recheck_on_update = > FALSE); > ERROR: unrecognized parameter "recheck_on_update" Oh, for crying out loud. That's yet a different bug. I'm not sure that it's the fault of the recheck_on_update feature proper though; it might be a pre-existing bug in the reloptions code. Looks like somebody forgot to list RELOPT_KIND_GIST in RELOPT_KIND_INDEX, but is that the fault of commit c203d6cf8 or was it busted before? regards, tom lane