Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-10-23T16:35:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:18:48AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Please see downthread -- there is some commentary from Noah ([1] and
> others) about the patch itself.  As far I understand, some changes are
> still needed, and I don't know if the last version submitted is the
> version that should be backpatched.

We'd best use the same patch for both HEAD and back branches; pg_upgrade would
carry forward faulty indexes.  pg_upgrade could instead invalidate them, but I
don't think the gravity of the problem calls for it.  A release note
suggesting a REINDEX of affected indexes ought to suffice.