| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, saicharh(at)amazon(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Fix stale relcache fields for TOAST indexes during REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2026-10-29 00:23:38 |
| Message-ID: | auKSCvK5NXCk_4yT@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 09:04:00AM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Nice, this is better. I think this approach makes the
> define-index-before-set-valid injection point redundant. I haven't dug
> into it, but maybe reindex-conc-index-built and
> reindex-relation-concurrently-before-{swap, set-dead, drop} too, since
> they all seem to be before a wait for lockers or older snapshots.
If you think that we could remove some of the INJECTION_POINT() macros
without impacting the coverage of the tests, we could do so.
I'm not planning to bother about a couple of lines of code, FWIW, and
the cost of these is low. And there is always the back-branch
consistency argument. As a whole I'm fine with the state of HEAD and
the stable branches.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-10-29 00:39:23 | Re: [PG19] pg_upgrade --check passes, then the upgrade fails |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-10-29 00:17:26 | Re: Assert failure in parallel query due to SubPlan double visit for hash join |