Re: More tests with USING INDEX replident and dropped indexes

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Rahila <rahila(dot)syed(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More tests with USING INDEX replident and dropped indexes
Date: 2020-08-30 07:05:48
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:28:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Attached is a patch for 1) and 2) grouped together, to ease review for
> now. I think that we had better fix 1) separately though, so I am
> going to start a new thread about that with a separate patch as the
> current thread is misleading.

A fix for consistency problem with indisreplident and invalid indexes
has been committed as of 9511fb37. Attached is a rebased patch, where
I noticed two incorrect things:
- The comment of REPLICA_IDENTITY_INDEX is originally incorrect. If
the index is dropped, the replica index switches back to nothing.
- relreplident was getting reset one transaction too late, when the
old index is marked as dead.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v5-0001-Reset-pg_class.relreplident-when-associated-repli.patch text/x-diff 10.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2020-08-30 07:25:39 Re: Improvements in Copy From
Previous Message Noah Misch 2020-08-30 05:34:33 Re: Spurious "apparent wraparound" via SimpleLruTruncate() rounding