Re: BUG #15597: possible bug in amcheck/amcheck_next (or corrupted index?)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15597: possible bug in amcheck/amcheck_next (or corrupted index?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WzkhPjWn+CXnvUPV=vk3UvRo-8VVc_CNiGKXetzdVc1USg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #15597: possible bug in amcheck/amcheck_next (or corrupted index?) (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15597: possible bug in amcheck/amcheck_next (or corrupted index?)
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:00 AM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > select bt_index_check(12345, true); > -- result: ERROR: heap tuple (0,2) from table "foo" lacks matching index > tuple within index "i_foo" > > Despite the error message I suspect the index being ok since I can find the > aforementioned tuples by using it: > > explain select * from foo where b='b' and c='c' > -- result: Index Scan using i_foo on foo... > select * from foo where b='b' and c='c' > -- result: 2 rows This looks like the same bug that I'm currently working through here: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WznrVd9ie+TTJ45nDT+v2nUt6YJwQrT9SebCdQKtAvfPZw@mail.gmail.com I have a draft patch that fixes this, but I haven't quite decided if I want to commit to the approach I've taken to normalizing TOASTed tuples. I will definitely fix the externally maintained version (amcheck_next) once this is settled. Thanks for the report. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: