Re: BUG #16595: Reads fail with "lost saved point in index" error after writes - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Jesse Kinkead
Subject Re: BUG #16595: Reads fail with "lost saved point in index" error after writes
Date
Msg-id CAGBNkrpMuKD1Q4Jdoyzvex_-MoCq_2Hbk1EXuKzQeDkM7OtcaA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #16595: Reads fail with "lost saved point in index" error after writes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Jesse Kinkead <jesse@falkon.ai> writes:
> > It sounds like this isn't a known problem,
>
> Well, now it is :-).  I'm just finishing up testing a patch.

Awesome!

> > and that the only workaround
> > might be just dropping the index. Hmm!
>
> Single-column GIN indexes aren't subject to the issue, so maybe you
> could work around it by replacing the multicolumn index with some
> single-column ones?

This might be an option for us to try out; thank you.

> Also, now that I've studied the code some more, the code path with
> the issue is only hit for queries that use (a) partial match or
> (b) an empty query that forces a full-index scan, similar to
> "arraycol @> '{}'".  That might explain how come the bug went
> undetected for so long.  I dunno if that info will help you dodge
> the bug, but maybe.

Interestingly, we're not querying on empty values, but we ARE querying
on multiple values at the same time (jsonb_column @> "value1" AND
jsonb_column @> "value2").

> If you can't find any acceptable workaround, another idea is to
> build your own server version with the patch applied, to tide
> you over until there's an official release with the fix.  IMO
> one of the main benefits of using open-source code is that that's
> normally not very difficult.

Indeed! And they frequently have very responsive maintainers. :)



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16595: Reads fail with "lost saved point in index" error after writes
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message.