Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Replace flaky CIC/RI isolation tests with a TAP test
- e1c971945d62 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Disable recently added CIC/RI isolation tests
- 77038d6d0b49 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix infer_arbiter_index for partitioned tables
- 81f72115cf18 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Stabilize tests some more
- a4a0fa0c7587 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Put back alternative-output expected files
- be25c7767728 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Remove doc and code comments about ON CONFLICT deficiencies
- 758479213d57 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Avoid use of NOTICE to wait for snapshot invalidation
- 5dee7a603f66 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix ON CONFLICT with REINDEX CONCURRENTLY and partitions
- 90eae926abbb 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT during REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
- 2bc7e886fc1b 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix new test for CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE builds
- 9e8fa05d3412 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Improve test case stability
- 417ac9c1eeeb 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix infer_arbiter_index during concurrent index operations
- bc32a12e0db2 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Doc: cover index CONCURRENTLY causing errors in INSERT ... ON CONFLICT.
- 438ccd33a37a 13.23 landed
- faba2595d619 14.20 landed
- e1dd1f924e19 15.15 landed
- 4c2895629f6f 16.11 landed
- 46524d519a2d 18.1 landed
- 27f714b5dad7 17.7 landed
- 8b18ed6dfbb8 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix infer_arbiter_indexes() to not assume resultRelation is 1.
- 915de706d28c 17.0 cited
-
Revert temporal primary keys and foreign keys
- 8aee330af55d 17.0 cited
On 2025-Nov-24, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:
> In a few words - it is an attempt to make sure the test goes to the
> wake-up backend only after it actually enters to wait mode. For that
> reason an additional 'notice' point is used by spec.
> I have proposed another possible solution for the [0] thread.
That makes sense. I pushed it now, many thanks.
On 2025-Nov-25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Reading through bc32a12e0db2, I am puzzled by the committed result
> here:
> +#ifdef USE_INJECTION_POINTS
> + if (conflict)
> + INJECTION_POINT("check-exclusion-or-unique-constraint-conflict", NULL);
> + else
> + INJECTION_POINT("check-exclusion-or-unique-constraint-no-conflict", NULL);
> +#endif
> If you have no plans for it in the long-term, I'd rather remove it
> from the tree, rather than keep it.
Removed.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"We have labored long to build a heaven, only to find it
populated with horrors" (Prof. Milton Glass)