On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 6:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > On 2021-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What do people think about back-patching this? In existing branches,
> >> we've defined it to be an opclass bug if it fails to shorten the leaf
> >> datum enough. But not having any defenses against that seems like
> >> not a great idea. OTOH, the 10-cycles-to-show-progress rule could be
> >> argued to be an API break.
>
> > I think if the alternative is to throw an error, we can afford to retry
> > quite a few more times than 10 in order not have that called an API
> > break. Say, retry (MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF << 3) times or so (if you want to
> > parameterize on maxalign). It's not like this is going to be a
> > performance drag where not needed .. but I think leaving back-branches
> > unfixed is not great.
>
> Hm. Index bloat is not something to totally ignore, though, so I'm
> not sure what the best cutoff is.
>
> Anyway, here is a patch set teased apart into committable bites,
> and with your other points addressed.
I have tested with my original issue and this patch is fixing the
issue. Thanks!
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com