From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Assertion failure in smgr.c when using pg_prewarm with partitioned tables
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 01:44:25 +0900
Message-ID: <23d5aea0-be92-4837-a5ee-1bdf0ebc49c5@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dfe167ebf508b9693a7f870b261df22a@oss.nttdata.com>
References: <1cf7a731-024b-4421-8f09-b67b5c25df93@email.android.com>
<591e4384-87c1-46b6-a4f2-144738f24956@oss.nttdata.com>
<dfe167ebf508b9693a7f870b261df22a@oss.nttdata.com>
On 2025/05/29 11:46, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback. I've attached the updated patches.
I've pushed the 0001 patch. Thanks!
> What do you think about adding new error messages specifically for partitioned
> indexes?
>
> If the target is a partitioned index, the error messages would be:
>
> ERROR: expected index as targets for verification
> DETAIL: This operation is not supported for partitioned indexes.
>
> If the target is an index, but its access method is not supported, the error
> messages would be:
>
> ERROR: expected "btree" index as targets for verification
> DETAIL: Relation "bttest_a_brin_idx" is a brin index.
Thanks for considering this. The proposed messages look good to me.
>> This is not directly relation to your proposal, but while reading
>> the index_checkable() function, I noticed that ReleaseSysCache()
>> is not called after SearchSysCache1(). Shouldn't we call
>> ReleaseSysCache() here? Alternatively, we could use get_am_name()
>> instead of SearchSysCache1(), which might be simpler.
>
> Agreed.
I may have been mistaken earlier. Based on the comment in SearchSysCache(),
the tuple returned by SearchSysCache1() is valid until the end of the transaction.
Since index_checkable() raises an error and ends the transaction immediately
after calling SearchSysCache1(), it seems safe to skip ReleaseSysCache()
in this case. Using get_am_name() instead seems simpler, though.
Thought?
>> I also observed that the error code ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED
>> is used when the relation is not the expected type in index_checkable().
>> However, based on similar cases (e.g., pgstattuple), it seems that
>> ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE might be more appropriate in this situation.
>> Thought?
>
> Agreed. I also change the error code to ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE
> when the index is not valid.
+1.
Should we commit patch 0003 before 0002? Also, should we consider back-patching it?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com, masao.fujii@gmail.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, guofenglinux@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Assertion failure in smgr.c when using pg_prewarm with partitioned tables
In-Reply-To: <23d5aea0-be92-4837-a5ee-1bdf0ebc49c5@oss.nttdata.com>
* 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