| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 |
| Date: | 2020-02-27 07:32:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20200227073211.GA403330@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 04:06:57PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Sorry, I just realized that I forgot to commit the last changes before sending
> the patch, so here's the correct v2.
Thanks for the patch.
> + if (skipit)
> + {
> + ereport(NOTICE,
> + (errmsg("skipping invalid index \"%s.%s\"",
> + get_namespace_name(get_rel_namespace(indexOid)),
> + get_rel_name(indexOid))));
ReindexRelationConcurrently() issues a WARNING when bumping on an
invalid index, shouldn't the same log level be used?
Even with this patch, it is possible to reindex an invalid toast index
with REINDEX INDEX (with and without CONCURRENTLY), which is the
problem I mentioned upthread (Er, actually only for the non-concurrent
case as told about reindex_index). Shouldn't both cases be prevented
as well with an ERROR?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-02-27 07:45:35 | Re: Collation versioning |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-02-27 07:23:44 | Re: Crash by targetted recovery |