On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:01:49PM +0530, Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> While analyzing the issue I did notice that validatePartitionedIndex() is
> the only place where the index tuple was copied from rel->rd_indextuple
> however was not clear about the motive behind it.
No idea either. Anyway, I've
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 1:40 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:26:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:35:17AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> Or do we actually need to update all the tuple header information as
> >> well in
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:26:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:35:17AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> Or do we actually need to update all the tuple header information as
>> well in RelationReloadIndexInfo() in order to fix that invariant so
>> that it can be used for
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:35:17AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Yeah, It seems that using pg_index tuples from relcache is not safe,
> at least for updating the catalog tuples. However, are there known
> rules or do we need to add some comments saying that the pg_index
> tuple from the relcache
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 3:56 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 04:02:23PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Oh, interesting. The fact that indisreplident isn't copied seems like
> > a pretty clear mistake, but I'm guessing that the fact that t_self
> > wasn't refreshed was
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:01:49AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what is happening here, but it looks to me like
> ATExecReplicaIdentity() only takes ShareLock on the index and
> nevertheless feels entitled to update the pg_index tuple, which is
> pretty strange. We normally
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 04:02:23PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Oh, interesting. The fact that indisreplident isn't copied seems like
> a pretty clear mistake, but I'm guessing that the fact that t_self
> wasn't refreshed was deliberate and that the author of this code
> didn't really intend for
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:28 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> I reviewed the function RelationReloadIndexInfo() and observed that the
> 'indisreplident' field and the SelfItemPointer 't_self' are not refreshed to
> the pg_index tuple of the index.
> Attached is the patch that fixes the above
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 5:46 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 1:56 PM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:38:05AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 4:26 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Taking the test case of upthread, from what I can see, the ALTER TABLE
> .. REPLICA IDENTITY registers two relcache invalidations for pk_foo
> (via RegisterRelcacheInvalidation), which is the relcache entry whose
> stuff is messed up. I
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 1:22 PM Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> BEGIN;
>
> CREATE TABLE foo (
> id INT NOT NULL,
> ts TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE NOT NULL
> ) PARTITION BY RANGE (ts);
>
> CREATE TABLE foo_2023 (
> id INT NOT NULL,
> ts TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE NOT NULL
> );
>
> ALTER TABLE ONLY foo
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 1:56 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:38:05AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> > While working recently on
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:38:05AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > While working recently on what has led to cfc43ae and fc55c7f, I
>> > really got the feeling that
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > While working recently on what has led to cfc43ae and fc55c7f, I
> > really got the feeling that there could be some command sequences that
> > lacked some CCIs (or
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:38:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> While working recently on what has led to cfc43ae and fc55c7f, I
> really got the feeling that there could be some command sequences that
> lacked some CCIs (or CommandCounterIncrement calls) to make sure that
> the catalog updates
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:52:16PM +0530, Shruthi Gowda wrote:
> While testing some use cases, I encountered 'ERROR: attempted to update
> invisible tuple' when a partitioned index is attached to a parent index
> which is also a replica identity index.
> Below is the reproducible test case. The
16 matches
Mail list logo
