MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CADzfLwW9QczZW-E=McxcjUv0e5VMDctQNETbgao0K-SimVhFPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <202505181556.3n6oiowvntyr@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CADzfLwXKtriMnfCNVGNH2ahwXaByjo-QOMWiDTU-9WZqh+zQ5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwW5bDWSxjHK7mqX8Lewki3+5FBydBC+nVcxg4xMGKscyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAof6-4xaV3QE2ErYJaJhu6qjFn99sWyo_HQeBhHikZM3GexA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwXocKhpW3eFP1oScz+m+1XJ3bpi9QmVpoqC9RX9oyX=UA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAof695VA+mbVRhWCTus=E0WnsMAQyqXxfOTohbcb7VUHSP4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAof69JSL8MYWG2qRScs3RQDpfcyZT_wFwW4SoAvftW+K_p1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVMtwjHh8KY9kP=_vcYPqHs=JDzuexO4RFQ2fM8VoqovA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAof68L0GO0F0bwuXtLZAjh9k_Hj+o0-8mqfO6iEQyXr4PuVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwUrodAcOggK+3j3LbPLaSXemgHxa-n=LhZTwRAsaakL2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAof691D4O=3QTuPwJXBYxYpG6s3A=tVhL9vN=T3eeRTMnaig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVT3Y14g6Maz2y92sP2L7rPvpznt+MHM++xiy-U3XMLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwXQe9XfQfJs3W-DCPqeqG4rq-6FoYUpGbbpgjcT1Eotpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMAof68kNgwWdkhmZd1ysfyU3PF66Wz+UaUr9g-LJg-_0xBV_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwUtLqYrupZp4QQuWwv4W_LgYWBRStybvQ+S0SZiHrp62A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVYUBb8cUVQ_1mzVzNMyJH84VZKFCRyATvBZKbLW377CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwWbV1i7+cP_Hqr3qgQnBXkAqgrCQxd5PFzqp2AOTK=40w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwXJc0jdDDS43-Fj0gKmwX-FURS3eY7MyLQ89qDPA6T5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVaV15R2rUNZmKqLKweiN3SnUBg=6_qGE_ERb7cdQUD8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WgBffcC_SKGLmVxW8uRTEsrwWOHDQujN6zyxy1tSYLJ=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVon8ESWOkg+8KU0F9=Hg7QKriNVX-hqcm-v-XZmHkzig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WiXYx1LKr=9d7PLsZOYrGytY9AN__tFFw4p_Ysgm1-e5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwUKXcXKZgX+e8ACsOXe_CgtWmNJY_6dyn8EO0AXYOn2pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WiiR2PeXg_vaURjjiiwvjQ=Um8wxWi1BcVS0BGyxiD2gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMT0RQQP9JiGqqB+pVBzPT7unG1BMBuLj=kGPk4BeS3g6VyT1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMT0RQSbFJCpetFy22=O=gKR2ZfH=tMTQeCM743T4o3rMjaeTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8010.1764584989@localhost>
 <CADzfLwUjgOxk8dd8XLv3jn05gAxxwEZoAA7-2Owb2CczkSb6Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5778.1764660480@localhost>
 <CADzfLwXMzv4_2Mc54qpASJ7FrKwQ6OsG0d9GxiYDxEKZ2KqHSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wg6d2M8hop4uwdQXeH-YkOmEHyqp83+aE7vEzKdmu7w-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVPQOF7m5x4d6=1tRJO==FUZdc3LeO=N_TpmOzii7iH_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVHzfdD3WB0iNDKJtXQ37VCWrYnCULz3QKzwM7jJFHt-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwU4oHR9gMV+OHgerp2ZLi3BSfLRZcBsG8g3G0f_RLPrGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVeQikArGV885zRMiSDW2-y=h=bvQiROvdq1Re1ojx9QA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwVWEgcC2s4Fgrr1j8y4-MM2wXdcgg4_LxPprgDes2v8ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwWJGCRJsWdNH8x1nh_5anbCbGQDLSL3hA2+bj+--29ahg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzfLwWQ4DKRRF5w2XUR9dFUtkxvKxKzWa5ARw7O9mSYdoufRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK3UJRGmCgCS5_pZDvugRmGhRuND0TwXXNs-u2sZzRQOE9E_JQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAK3UJRGmCgCS5_pZDvugRmGhRuND0TwXXNs-u2sZzRQOE9E_JQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 01:19:00 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CADzfLwXpAHZujwO517mXwAtOD=LQsZfAK_JSgbQqGDeZVWgNCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
 Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>,
	Hannu Krosing <hannuk@google.com>,
 Sergey Sargsyan <sergey.sargsyan.2001@gmail.com>,
	=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Andrey Borodin <amborodin86@gmail.com>,
	Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADzfLwXpAHZujwO517mXwAtOD%3DLQsZfAK_JSgbQqGDeZVWgNCg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Josh!

Your review looks a bit LLM-generated, but anyway - thanks for review! :)
Especially because at least one point seems to be valid.

> We're leaving behind two invalid indexes now that the user has to figure
> out how to drop in case of an error - that seems like it could be confusing for the user.
> Could we have some better way (error handler, background worker) try to perform this cleanup automatically?
> If not, we should at least tell the user clearly in the error message that both
> invalid indexes are left behind (i.e. "idx" and "idx_ccaux" in the example)

Commit 0005 adds automatic dropping of auxiliary indexes when the
original index is reindexed or dropped. Also, documentation reflects
the ccaux index (similar to ccnew).

> Docs are inconsistent or confusing about whether there's one or two indexes left behind in case of error
> - e.g. "command will fail but leave behind *an* invalid index and its associated auxiliary index"
> somewhat implying there is only one invalid index, and somehow the auxiliary index is valid?

Auxiliary index is never marked as valid; I'm not sure we need to
highlight it here. Or do you have an idea how to rephrase?

> Similarly, when the doc mentions e.g. "drop the index" - it's not necessarily clear which index
> we're talking about when there are two invalid indexes left behind that the user will see with `\d`

In one commit it says: "method in such cases is to drop these indexes
and try again to perform".
After 0005 "The auxiliary index (suffixed with
<literal>_ccaux</literal>) will be automatically dropped when the main
index is dropped".
It seems clear to me, but feel free to provide your variant.

>  * It would be nice to guard against users trying arbitrary CREATE INDEX ... USING stir(...) with a clear error

It will fail with "Building STIR indexes is not supported".

> One of the testcases (line 2478 of patch 0004) does `DELETE FROM concur_reindex_tab4 WHERE c1 = 1;`
> but the table `concur_reindex_tab4` looks like it has been dropped a few lines above that?

Hm, yep, I'll fix it.

> The StirPageGetFreeSpace macro from patch 0002 reads `StirPageGetMaxOffset(page)`
> which seems like it could cause an unsafe read of opaque->maxoff if used on the metapage

But it was never used for the metapage.

> A comment explains "No predicate evaluation is needed here" , i.e. we are skipping predicate
> evaluation in the validation scan step, assuming that the
> auxiliary index contains only qualifying TIDs. Is this really bulletproof for e.g. partial indexes which may
> no longer satisfy the predicate at the time of the validation scan due to conflicting HOT updates?

Conflicting HOT updates are not possible because the catalog contains
the new index definition from the start of the process.
Or do you mean a different scenario?

Best regards,
Mikhail.