From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index |
Date: | 2020-04-02 07:38:36 |
Message-ID: | 20200402073836.GA17269@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Apr-02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Now, regarding patch 0002, note that you have a problem for this part:
> - tuple = SearchSysCache1(INDEXRELID, ObjectIdGetDatum(indexOid));
> - if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tuple)) /* probably can't happen */
> - {
> - relation_close(OldHeap, AccessExclusiveLock);
> - pgstat_progress_end_command();
> - return;
> - }
> - indexForm = (Form_pg_index) GETSTRUCT(tuple);
> - if (!indexForm->indisclustered)
> + if (!get_index_isclustered(indexOid))
> {
> - ReleaseSysCache(tuple);
> relation_close(OldHeap, AccessExclusiveLock);
> pgstat_progress_end_command();
> return;
> }
> - ReleaseSysCache(tuple);
>
> On an invalid tuple for pg_index, the new code would issue an error,
> while the old code would just return.
I don't think we need to worry about that problem, because we already
checked that the pg_class tuple for the index is there two lines above.
The pg_index tuple cannot have gone away on its own; and the index can't
be deleted either, because cluster_rel holds AEL on the table. There
isn't "probably" about the can't-happen condition, is there?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-02 07:39:58 | Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-02 07:24:03 | Re: ALTER tbl rewrite loses CLUSTER ON index |