Re: REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations
Date: 2020-09-01 01:38:44
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 06:10:46PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> I reviewed the patch. It does work and the code is clean and sane. It
> implements a logic that we already had in CLUSTER, so I think it was simply
> an oversight. Thank you for fixing this.

Thanks Anastasia for the review.

> I noticed that REINDEXOPT_MISSING_OK can be passed to the TOAST table
> reindex. I think it would be better to reset the flag in this
> reindex_relation() call, as we don't expect a concurrent DROP here.

Good point, and fixed by resetting the flag here if it is set.

I have added some extra comments. There is one in
ReindexRelationConcurrently() to mention that there should be no extra
use of MISSING_OK once the list of indexes is built as session locks
are taken where needed.

Does the version attached look fine to you? I have done one round of
indentation while on it.

Attachment Content-Type Size
reindex-schema-fix-v2.patch text/x-diff 10.6 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-09-01 01:43:47 Re: Manager for commit fest 2020-09
Previous Message Tatsuro Yamada 2020-09-01 01:37:49 Re: v13: show extended stats target in \d