Re: pgsql: Comments in IndexBuildHeapScan describe - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: pgsql: Comments in IndexBuildHeapScan describe
Date
Msg-id 1143490733.3839.205.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to pgsql: Comments in IndexBuildHeapScan describe the indexing of  (tgl@postgresql.org (Tom Lane))
Responses Re: pgsql: Comments in IndexBuildHeapScan describe  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-committers
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 19:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Comments in IndexBuildHeapScan describe the indexing of recently-dead
> tuples as needed "to keep VACUUM from complaining", but actually there is
> a more compelling reason to do it: failure to do so violates MVCC semantics.
> This is because a pre-existing serializable transaction might try to use
> the index after we finish (re)building it, and it might fail to find tuples
> it should be able to see.  We got this mostly right, but not in the case
> of partial indexes: the code mistakenly discarded recently-dead tuples for
> partial indexes.  Fix that, and adjust the comments.
>
> Tags:
> ----
> REL8_1_STABLE
>
> Modified Files:
> --------------
>     pgsql/src/backend/catalog:
>         index.c (r1.261.2.1 -> r1.261.2.2)
>         (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/catalog/index.c.diff?r1=1.261.2.1&r2=1.261.2.2)

Well spotted...

I notice the same error occurs in REL8_0_STABLE, REL7_4_STABLE and
REL7_3_STABLE. This is a data loss bug, so why not back apply to those
releases also?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs



pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: ksrikanth@pgfoundry.org (User Ksrikanth)
Date:
Subject: bizgres - bizgres: Introduce release Release-0_9_1
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Comments in IndexBuildHeapScan describe