| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2019-05-07 16:17:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20190507161711.cjzajb7rgo6v3d4i@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-07 12:14:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2019-05-07 12:07:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The number of deadlock failures is kind of annoying, so I'd rather remove
> >> the tests from HEAD sooner than later. What issues around that do you
> >> think remain that these tests would be helpful for?
>
> > I was wondering about
> > https://postgr.es/m/20190430151735.wi52sxjvxsjvaxxt%40alap3.anarazel.de
> > but perhaps it's too unlikely to break anything the tests would detect
> > though.
>
> Since we don't allow REINDEX CONCURRENTLY on system catalogs, I'm not
> seeing any particular overlap there ...
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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-07 16:19:05 | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-07 16:14:43 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |