Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right?
Date: 2019-05-03 15:23:21
Message-ID: 20190503152321.pvmfdqx2togymbje@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-05-03 09:37:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is still deadlock prone because of
> WaitForOlderSnapshots(), so this doesn't actually fix your test case,
> but that seems unrelated to this particular issue.

Right.

I've not tested the change, but it looks reasonable to me. The change
of moving the logic the reset of *heapOid to the unlock perhaps is
debatable, but I think it's OK.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-03 15:44:04 error messages in extended statistics
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-05-03 15:06:58 Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs