| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal : REINDEX SCHEMA |
| Date: | 2014-12-09 09:00:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLGekYxAvdK4+MgSjYYHPPndVdkz7Zgoqk8gPQxDeQSZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 December 2014 at 17:17, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> While re-looking at that. I just found that when selecting the
>> relations that are reindexed for a schema we ignore materialized view
>> as the key scan is only done using 'r' as relkind. The patch attached
>> fixes that.
> Here is an updated patch doing as well that:
> - Regression test checking if user has permissions on schema was broken
> - Silent NOTICE messages of REINDEX by having client_min_messages set
> to WARINING (thoughts about having a plpgsql function doing
> consistency checks of relfilenode before and after reindex?)
ISTM that REINDEX is not consistent with VACUUM, ANALYZE or CLUSTER in
the way it issues NOTICE messages.
I'm inclined to simply remove the NOTICE messages, except when a
REINDEX ... VERBOSE is requested.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2014-12-09 09:23:36 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX SCHEMA |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-12-09 08:52:34 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |