Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Mikhail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>

From: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>

To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>

Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-12-08T11:34:00Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: 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

Hello, Álvaro!

On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:58 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it was the initial idea.

> 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?

I think the next logic is correct:
* for each IS indisvalid arbiter in the parent table we should have AT
LEAST ONE compatible indisvalid pair in the partition (we may have
multiple or a few more ready-only)
* for each NOT indisvalid arbiter in parent  - nothing is expected
from partition

I'll try to create a patch with such later.

Best regards,
Mikhail.