On 2013-12-31 17:14:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter pointed out in
> that Kyotaro-san's patch to treat unique indexes as satisfying any sort
> condition that they are a prefix of broke the drop-index-concurrently-1
> isolation test. The latest iterations of the patch respond to that by
> changing the expected output. However, that seems rather wrongheaded,
> because AFAICT the intent of that part of the test is to demonstrate that
> a seqscan has particular behavior; so if the planner starts generating an
> indexscan instead, the test no longer proves anything of the kind.
> What I'm wondering though is what's the point of testing that a concurrent
> DROP INDEX doesn't affect a seqscan? That seems kinda silly, so it's
> tempting to address the patch's problem by just removing the steps
> involving the getrow_seq query, rather than hacking it up enough so we'd
> still get a seqscan plan.
The point is to show that an index scan returns the same rows a
sequential scan would, even though the index is in the process of being
dropped and has been updated *after* the DROP started. That was broken
at some point.
Now, you could argue that that would also be shown without the
sequential scan, but I think that would make understanding the faulty
> I'd have thought the test would be designed to allow
> the DROP to complete and then re-test that the results of the prepared
> query are still sane, but it does no such thing.
We could add a permutation like this, but ISTM that it would just test
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: