| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rahila Syed <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: | 2020-09-02 06:00:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20200902060044.GB2129@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 09:27:33AM +0530, Rahila Syed wrote:
> TBH, I am not sure. I think it is a reasonable change. It is even
> indicated in the
> comment above index_set_state_flags() that it can be made transactional.
> At the same time, probably we can just go ahead with current
> inconsistent update of relisreplident and indisvalid flags. Can't see what
> will break with that.
Yeah, that's true as well. Still, I would like to see first if people
are fine with changing this code path to be transactional. This way,
we will have zero history in the tree where there was a risk for an
inconsistent window.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jürgen Purtz | 2020-09-02 07:04:38 | Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-02 05:58:28 | Re: REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations |