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: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6
Date: 2019-05-10 20:29:18
Message-ID: 16279.1557520158@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 2019-05-07 09:17:11 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Well, it rejiggers the way table locks are acquired for all REINDEX
>> INDEX commands, not just in the CONCURRENTLY. But yea, it's probably
>> easy to catch issues there on user tables.

> Pushed now.

OK. I marked the open issue as closed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-05-10 20:46:40 Re: Unexpected "shared memory block is still in use"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-05-10 20:28:32 Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names