| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Garrett Thornburg <film42(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Add REINDEX tag to event triggers |
| Date: | 2023-12-06 23:32:45 |
| Message-ID: | ZXEEnWcT-5WDAYMc@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 10:00:01AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I agree with it. I had worried a bit about ReindexRelationConcurrently()
> becoming twofold for callers (it can leave the snapshot or pop it), but I
> couldn't find a way to hide this twofoldness inside without adding more
> complexity. On the other hand, ReindexRelationConcurrently() now satisfies
> EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() in all cases.
Thanks, applied that with a few more tests, covering a bit more than
the code path you've reported with a failure.
I was wondering if this should be backpatched, actually, but could not
make a case for it as we've never needed a snapshot after a reindex
until now, AFAIK.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafael Thofehrn Castro | 2023-12-06 23:33:56 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-12-06 23:28:06 | Re: Emitting JSON to file using COPY TO |