|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019-05-07 09:17:11 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2019-05-10 20:18:32||Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2019-05-10 20:09:06||Re: What's the point of allow_system_table_mods?|