Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Does the current code cope with the corruption?
> 
> It's not corruption, but "intended degradation". Yes, the current code 
> copes with it, that's how GiST survives a crash. However, even with the 
> current code, VACUUM will nag if it finds any invalid tuples with this 
> message:
> 
> ereport(NOTICE,
>     (errmsg("index \"%s\" needs VACUUM FULL or REINDEX to finish crash 
> recovery",
> 
> That's harmless, in the sense that all scans and inserts work fine, but 
> scans might need to do more work than if the invalid tuple wasn't there.
> 
> I don't think we need to go out of our way to support such degraded 
> indexes in 9.1. If you see such notices in your logs, you should REINDEX 
> anyway, before of after pg_upgrade. Let's just make sure that you get a 
> reasonable error message in 9.1 if a scan or insert encounters such a tuple.
> 
> There is a section on this in the docs, BTW: 
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/gist-recovery.html

OK, administrators will be prompted during normal operation --- seems
there is nothing extra for pg_upgrade to do here.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +