Re: ltree_gist indexes broken after pg_upgrade from 12 to 13
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ltree_gist indexes broken after pg_upgrade from 12 to 13 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 81574b33-360a-73b7-530a-dc314489a22b@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ltree_gist indexes broken after pg_upgrade from 12 to 13 (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ltree_gist indexes broken after pg_upgrade from 12 to 13
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/24/22 23:13, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > On 2/24/22 23:06, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2022-02-24 22:15:20 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> After thinking about this I only see two options: >>> >>> 1) Don't apply the patch and tell everyone using ltree_gist they need to >>> rebuild the index after pg_upgrade from 12 to 13+. The downside of this >>> is larger indexes (because some tuples are 20B larger). >>> >>> 2) Apply the patch + tell those who already upgraded from 12 to rebuild >>> ltree_gist indexes, because those might be broken due to new inserts. >>> >>> >>> My opinion is to do (2), because at least those who'll upgrade later >>> (which is a lot of people) will be fine without a rebuild. And it also >>> makes the indexes a bit smaller, thanks to saving 20B. >> >> Won't 2) also break indexes created without a pg_upgrade? "already upgraded >> from 12" sounds like it wouldn't but I don't see why? >> > > It will, unfortunately - that's why I wrote "upgrade" in that sentence. > I should have been more explicit, sorry. But any new index tuples formed > after starting the 13+ cluster are/may be corrupted. > I wonder if we could check the index tuple length, and adjust the siglen based on that, somehow ... regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: