Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6
Date: 2019-05-02 21:12:03
Message-ID: 11237.1556831523@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-02 16:54:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How do you feel about the other patch to rejigger the order of operations
>> in CommandCounterIncrement? I think that's a bug, but it's probably
>> noncritical for most people. What I'm leaning towards for that one is
>> waiting till after the minor releases, then pushing it to all branches.

> I've not yet have the mental cycles to look more deeply into it. I
> thought your explanation why the current way is wrong made sense, but I
> wanted to look a bit more into how it came to be how it is now.

Well, I wrote that code, and I can say pretty confidently that this
failure mode just didn't occur to me at the time.

> I agree
> that pushing after the minors would make sense, it's too subtle to go
> for it now.

It is subtle, and given that it's been there this long, I don't feel
urgency to fix it Right Now. I think we're already taking plenty of
risk back-patching the REINDEX patch :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-05-02 23:18:19 Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-05-02 21:02:53 Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6