Re: BUG #17959: amcheck fails to find a matching index tuple for an invisible heap tuple
| От | Peter Geoghegan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BUG #17959: amcheck fails to find a matching index tuple for an invisible heap tuple |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAH2-WznSJW4_YzRf85qny39E2g=XOekA+k9u+RQavPj_tYO1Fw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | BUG #17959: amcheck fails to find a matching index tuple for an invisible heap tuple (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 12:29 AM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > SELECT ctid, * FROM pg_depend WHERE refclassid = 0x0a37 AND refobjid = > 0x4036 AND refobjsubid = 0 > doesn't return any rows. > > Shouldn't amcheck ignore invisible tuples? It should -- so there must be a bug. This is a system catalog index, so I wonder if this issue is in any way related to this known issue: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-WzkjjCoq5Y4LeeHJcjYJVxGm3M3SAWZ0%3D6J8K1FPSC9K0w%40mail.gmail.com (I've been meaning to get around to finally fixing it.) Admittedly this is a fairly wild guess -- the details don't really match. Even still, the fact that this is a system catalog index seems very unlikely to be incidental to the problem. There are some significant differences between how system indexes and other indexes are built in heapam_index_build_range_scan(). Those differences seem like they could easily be relevant. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: