| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: v12.0: segfault in reindex CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2019-10-18 01:23:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20191018012323.GI17439@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:56:48AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Oct-17, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> pgstat_progress_end_command() is done for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY after
>> the concurrent drop, so it made sense to me to still report any PID
>> REINDEX CONC is waiting for at this stage.
>
> Yeah, okay. So let's talk about your proposed new comment. First,
> there are two spots where WaitForLockers is called in index_drop and
> you're proposing to patch the second one. I think we should patch the
> first one and reference that one from the second one. I propose
> something like this (sorry for crude pasting):
>
> <comments>
What you are proposing here sounds fine to me. Perhaps you would
prefer to adjust the code yourself?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2019-10-18 01:23:55 | RE: extension patch of CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-10-18 01:03:11 | Re: Remaining calls of heap_close/heap_open in the tree |