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 catalog tuple updates as well?
>
> RelationReloadIndexInfo() is designed to be minimal, so I am not
> really excited about extending it more than necessary without a case
> in favor of it. indisreplident is clearly on the list of things to
> update in this concept. The others would need a more careful
> evaluation, though we don't really have a case for doing more, IMO,
> particularly in the score of stable branches.
FYI, I was planning to do something about this thread in the shape of
two different patches: one for the indisreplident missing from the
RelationReloadIndexInfo() and one for the syscache issue in the
partitioned index validation. indisreplident use in the backend code
is interesting, as, while double-checking the code, I did not find a
code path involving a command where indisreplident would be checked
from the pg_index tuple in the relcache: all the values are from
tuples retrieved from the syscache.
--
Michael
