On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 06:05:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >> I agree that this isn't terribly significant in general. Your proposed
> >> wording seems better than what we have now, but a reference to INCLUDE
> >> indexes also seems like a good idea. They are the only type of index
> >> that could possibly have the issue with page deletion/VACUUM becoming
> >> confused.
>
> > If true, that's important to mention, yes.
>
> Thanks for the input, guys. What do you think of
>
> Avoid writing an invalid empty btree index page in the unlikely case
> that a failure occurs while processing INCLUDEd columns during a page
> split (Peter Geoghegan)
>
> The invalid page would not affect normal index operations, but it
> might cause failures in subsequent VACUUMs. If that has happened to
> one of your indexes, recover by reindexing the index.
Looks good.
