Re: 'ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple' from 'ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION' on parent index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: 'ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple' from 'ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION' on parent index
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoauWdw=nRUeBRkgr-oRvv-cPDOEN8pCr_EYKHC9LFLzTQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to 'ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple' from 'ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION' on parent index  (Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 1:22 PM Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru@gmail.com> 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   ATTACH PARTITION foo_2023   FOR VALUES FROM ('2023-01-01 00:00:00+09') TO ('2024-01-01 00:00:00+09');

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX pk_foo  ON ONLY foo USING btree (id, ts);

ALTER TABLE ONLY foo REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX pk_foo;

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX foo_2023_id_ts_ix ON foo_2023 USING btree (id, ts);

ALTER INDEX pk_foo ATTACH PARTITION foo_2023_id_ts_ix;

This example confused me quite a bit when I first read it. I think that the documentation for CREATE INDEX .. ONLY is pretty inadequate. All it says is "Indicates not to recurse creating indexes on partitions, if the table is partitioned. The default is to recurse." But that would just create a permanently empty index, which is of no use to anyone. I think we should somehow explain the intent of this, namely that this creates an initially invalid index which can be made valid by using ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION once per partition.

--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: 'ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple' from 'ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION' on parent index
Next
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: XLog size reductions: Reduced XLog record header size for PG17