Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6
Date: 2019-05-07 16:14:43
Message-ID: 2538.1557245683@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-07 12:07:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The number of deadlock failures is kind of annoying, so I'd rather remove
>> the tests from HEAD sooner than later. What issues around that do you
>> think remain that these tests would be helpful for?

> I was wondering about
> https://postgr.es/m/20190430151735.wi52sxjvxsjvaxxt%40alap3.anarazel.de
> but perhaps it's too unlikely to break anything the tests would detect
> though.

Since we don't allow REINDEX CONCURRENTLY on system catalogs, I'm not
seeing any particular overlap there ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-05-07 16:17:11 Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-05-07 16:12:37 Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch