Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 462249.1698109561@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 5:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Separately, I wonder if index_unchanged_by_update should actually just >>> always give the hint with a non-HOT update, regardless of the >>> specifics for each index/its columns -- just like on the v14 branch. >> I'm confused. Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of "unchanged"? > Well, in practice "indexUnchanged = true" means "do bottom-up deletion > if it's the only way to avoid a page split". The justification is that > the incoming tuple is "logically unchanged" (actually it's more > complicated than that, but that's our starting point). But doesn't the need for a non-HOT update show that the tuple *was* changed --- in index-relevant columns, even? Maybe I'm still not understanding exactly what condition we're detecting. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: