| 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: | 2020-03-05 03:53:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20200305035354.GQ2593@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:21:45AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I started to look at it during the weekend, but
> I got interrupted and unfortunately didn't had time to look at it
> since.
No problem, thanks for looking at it. I have looked at it again this
morning, and applied it.
> The fix looks good to me. I also tried multiple failure scenario and
> it's unsurprisingly working just fine. Should we add some regression
> tests for that? I guess most of it could be borrowed from the patch
> to fix the toast index issue I sent last week.
I have doubts when it comes to use a strategy based on
pg_cancel_backend() and a match of application_name (see for example
5ad72ce but I cannot find the associated thread). I think that we
could design something more robust here and usable by all tests, with
two things coming into my mind:
- A new meta-command for isolation tests to be able to cancel a
session with PQcancel().
- Fault injection in the backend.
For the case of this thread, the cancellation command would be a better
match.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Suraj Kharage | 2020-03-05 04:07:13 | Re: backup manifests |
| Previous Message | Suraj Kharage | 2020-03-05 03:50:19 | Re: backup manifests |