Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2014-03-17 21:09:10 +0000, Greg Stark wrote: >> That said, it would be nice to actually fix the problem, not just >> detect it. Eventually vacuum would fix the problem. I think. I'm not >> really sure what will happen actually.
> Indexes will quite possibly stay corrupted. I think. If there was a > index lookup for a affected row, the kill_prior_tuple logic will have > quite possibly have zapped the index entry. Whether it did or not, there's no way for the index entry to reach the now-live tuple version (if it was a HOT update), so the question is moot. What seems more interesting is whether REINDEX could fix the problem, but at least with the current logic in catalog/index.c the answer seems to be "no". It's possible that a REINDEX attempt would work to detect whether you have a problem (ie, see if you get one of the errors I just added). I'm not sure that's bulletproof though. > I think the best way to really cleanup a table is to use something like: > ALTER TABLE rew ALTER COLUMN data TYPE text USING (data); > where text is the previous type of the column. That should trigger a > full table rewrite, without any finesse about tracking ctid chains. Um... don't we have logic in there that's smart enough to short-circuit that? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers