|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Ronan Dunklau <ronan(at)dunklau(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Preserve attstattarget on REINDEX CONCURRENTLY|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 10:39:53PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Copying this info in index_concurrently_swap seems a bit strange - we're
> copying other stuff there, but this is modifying something we've already
> copied before. I understand why we do it there to make this backpatchable,
> but maybe it'd be good to mention this in a comment (or at least the commit
> message). We could do this in the backbranches only and the "correct" way in
> master, but that does not seem worth it.
> One minor comment - the code says this:
> /* no need for a refresh if both match */
> if (attstattarget == att->attstattarget)
> Isn't that just a different way to say "attstattarget is not default")?
For REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, yes. I was thinking here about the case
where this code is used for other purposes in the future, where
attstattarget may not be -1.
I'll see about applying this stuff after the next version is tagged
|Next Message||Kasahara Tatsuhito||2021-02-07 02:02:21||Re: There doesn't seem to be any case where PQputCopyEnd() returns 0|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2021-02-07 00:05:11||Re: Bug in query rewriter - hasModifyingCTE not getting set|