Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2023 18:31:26 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgstatindex vs. !indisready
Message-ID: <20231002013126.ad.nmisch@google.com>
References: <20231001195309.a3@google.com>
 <1867127.1696192645@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20231001205830.2f.nmisch@google.com>
 <CAH2-WzmFaz4RcJnyNrouHmf1x0FFTDFih_krm3aohVc3NmA9qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZRoNwZD8gjGToV2R@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZRoNwZD8gjGToV2R@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20231002013126.ad.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:24:33AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 04:20:42PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 2:00 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> >> [brin_desummarize_range brin_summarize_new_values brin_summarize_range
> >> gin_clean_pending_list] currently succeed.  I propose to make them emit a
> >> DEBUG1 message and return early, like amcheck does, except on !indisready.
> >> This would allow users to continue running them on all indexes of the
> >> applicable access method.  Doing these operations on an
> >> indisready&&!indisvalid index is entirely reasonable, since they relate to
> >> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE operations.
> 
> Hmm.  Still slightly incorrect in some cases?  Before being switched
> to indisvalid, an index built concurrently may miss some tuples
> deleted before the reference snapshot used to build the index was
> taken.

The !indisvalid index may be missing tuples, yes.  In what way does that make
one of those four operations incorrect?