| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right? |
| Date: | 2019-05-08 12:33:39 |
| Message-ID: | 254f0ca0-8e5e-5fdb-dfc7-4cea88f3dc64@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-05-07 05:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 09:59:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> The result should be no deadlocks happening in the two sessions
>> running the reindex. I can see the deadlock easily with three psql
>> sessions, running manually the queries.
>
> + * If the OID isn't valid, it means the index as concurrently dropped,
> + * which is not a problem for us; just return normally.
> Typo here s/as/is/.
>
> I have looked closer at the patch and the change proposed looks good
> to me.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-08 13:05:38 | Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-08 12:31:54 | Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |