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-Dec-06, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:
> From my perspective, the correct solution - is to just remove the
> error message, because it looks obsolete now.
Rereading this -- did you mean to propose that a possible fix was to
remove the "invalid arbiter index list" error? I had understood
something different.
Your idea downthread of changing the way that check works (so that we
don't throw an error in this case, but we continue to double-check that
the arbiter list is sensible) sounds reasonable to me. Do you want to
propose a specific check for it?
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
<inflex> really, I see PHP as like a strange amalgamation of C, Perl, Shell
<crab> inflex: you know that "amalgam" means "mixture with mercury",
more or less, right?
<crab> i.e., "deadly poison"