|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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.
|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|