From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Make name optional in CREATE STATISTICS |
Date: | 2022-07-25 10:55:54 |
Message-ID: | 20220725105554.mgtvlgl35g2r2plk@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Jul-25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:49:50AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2022-Jul-23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> By the way, it seems that 83011ce also broke the case of "REINDEX
> >> DATABASE CONCURRENTLY", where the parser missed the addition of a
> >> DefElem for "concurrently" in this case.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> For this one, we have a gap in the test, actually. It seems to me
> that we'd better make sure that the OID of the indexes rebuilt
> concurrently is changed. There is a REINDEX DATABASE CONCURRENTLY
> already in the TAP tests, and the only thing that would be needed for
> the job is an extra query that compares the OID saved before the
> reindex with the one in the catalogs after the fact..
Agreed. I think you already have the query for that elsewhere in the
test, so it's just a matter of copying it from there.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No tengo por qué estar de acuerdo con lo que pienso"
(Carlos Caszeli)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-07-25 10:57:43 | RE: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns |
Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2022-07-25 10:50:25 | Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication |