| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
| Date: | 2019-04-30 04:50:20 |
| Message-ID: | 26528.1556599820@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 April 29, 2019 9:37:33 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Seems like putting reindexes of pg_class into a test script that runs
>> in parallel with other DDL wasn't a hot idea.
> Saw that. Will try to reproduce (and if necessary either run separately or revert). But isn't that somewhat broken? They're not run in a transaction, so the locking shouldn't be deadlock prone.
Hm? REINDEX INDEX is deadlock-prone by definition, because it starts
by opening/locking the index and then it has to open/lock the index's
table. Every other operation locks tables before their indexes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-04-30 05:12:03 | performance regression when filling in a table |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-04-30 04:44:26 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |