Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Manuel Rigger <rigger(dot)manuel(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails
Date: 2019-11-14 08:08:55
Message-ID: 20191114080855.GG1910@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:45:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh, I like that idea. Keeps applications from having to think
> about this.

That's interesting, but I would be on the side of just generating an
error in this case thinking about potential future features like
global temporary tables, and because it could always be relaxed in the
future.

I am actually wondering if we don't have more problems with other
utility commands which spawn multiple transactions...

Any extra opinion?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fan|| 2019-11-14 08:13:10 回复： BUG #16102: Table can't be drop on PostgreSQL 10.09 if the table was created from PostgreSQL 10.10
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-11-14 04:09:12 Re: Unexpected "cache lookup failed for collation 0" failure