Re: Patch: VACUUM should ignore (CREATE |RE)INDEX CONCURRENTLY for xmin horizon calculations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: Patch: VACUUM should ignore (CREATE |RE)INDEX CONCURRENTLY for xmin horizon calculations
Date
Msg-id CAMT0RQSdpMy2qK3PeqE6F=OjLBvyAPQL-wpmX8nP97TUdayp=w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch: VACUUM should ignore (CREATE |RE)INDEX CONCURRENTLY for xmin horizon calculations  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Patch: VACUUM should ignore (CREATE |RE)INDEX CONCURRENTLY for xmin horizon calculations
List pgsql-hackers
So what are the options for a clean fix ?
(the "Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/17485-396609c6925b982d%40postgresql.org" link
gives 503 back so can't immediately check myself)

Do we also need to make sure that CIC will not miss hot-pruned tuples
? What is the exact mechanism for missing them ?

Or should we just try to have a separate frozen per-table Xmin to be
used by CIC ?



On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:09 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 4:18 PM Hannu Krosing <hannuk@google.com> wrote:
> > When VACUUM decides which rows are safe to freeze or permanently
> > remove it currently ignores backends which have PROC_IN_VACUUM or
> > PROC_IN_LOGICAL_DECODING bits set.
> >
> > This patch adds PROC_IN_SAFE_IC to this set, so backends running
> > CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY or REINDEX CONCURRENTLY and where the index
> > is "simple" - i.e. not expression indexes or conditional indexes are
> > involved - these would be ignored too.
>
> Are you aware of commit d9d076222f5b? It was subsequently reverted by
> commit e28bb885 because it led to subtle data corruption. Indexes had
> wrong contents due to an unforeseen interaction with pruning.
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Next
From: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Date:
Subject: Re: The pgperltidy diffs in HEAD