Hi Tom,
Thanks for the reply.
We are currently running 9.4.4. 9.4.5 notes have two references to gin
index but does not seem to address the issue.
We are however able to create same index on some other databases. So it
maybe data related or size of table related? So far, the failed cases
Glenn Zhu writes:
> Currently, after hitting the error, the indexes were still created but
> marked with status of "invalid"
That's just what CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY would do with any error.
(It might be worth checking whether a non-CONCURRENTLY build hits the
same error,
Glenn Zhu writes:
> We are currently running 9.4.4. 9.4.5 notes have two references to gin
> index but does not seem to address the issue.
> We are however able to create same index on some other databases. So it
> maybe data related or size of table related?
I'd guess that
Currently, after hitting the error, the indexes were still created but
marked with status of "invalid"
Looks like we shall see inserts to fail with the index on the column,
regardless of the index status ("valid" or "invalid"), if we start to
receive the "bad" values? Maybe I shall drop all
Glenn Zhu writes:
> We are getting an error on the following statement:
> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY customer_jsonb_fields_idx ON customer USING gin
> (jsonb_fields jsonb_path_ops);
> ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 2013265920
> Anyone know what is causing it?
We can't test a non-concurrent index build in production - but your word is
just as good.
We only see this on some of production databases. We did not see it in QA
testing. But we will try to get a test case in QA.
Is this categorized as a bug specific to GIN indexes or a PostgreSQL bug in
Glenn Zhu writes:
> Is this categorized as a bug specific to GIN indexes or a PostgreSQL bug in
> general?
My gut says it's GIN-specific, but that's really only an educated guess;
we have too little info.
What I would recommend is that you get the data onto a non-production
We will follow your instructions and get back to you.
Thank you Tom. Much appreciated!
-glenn
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Glenn Zhu writes:
> > Is this categorized as a bug specific to GIN indexes or a PostgreSQL bug
> in
> >