|From:||Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: reindex concurrently and two toast indexes|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 08:09:24AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:39:49AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > > >> Hmm. There could be an argument here for skipping invalid toast
> > > >> indexes within reindex_index(), because we are sure about having at
> > > >> least one valid toast index at anytime, and these are not concerned
> > > >> with CIC.
> PFA a patch to fix the problem using this approach.
> I also added isolation tester regression tests. The failure is simulated using
> a pg_cancel_backend() on top of pg_stat_activity, using filters on a
> specifically set application name and the query text to avoid any unwanted
> interaction. I also added a 1s locking delay, to ensure that even slow/CCA
> machines can consistently reproduce the failure. Maybe that's not enough, or
> maybe testing this scenario is not worth the extra time.
Sorry, I just realized that I forgot to commit the last changes before sending
the patch, so here's the correct v2.
|Next Message||Peter Eisentraut||2020-02-22 15:12:27||Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process|
|Previous Message||Justin Pryzby||2020-02-22 11:13:19||Re: reindex concurrently and two toast indexes|