| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right? |
| Date: | 2019-05-02 20:39:15 |
| Message-ID: | dd884dfc-f5ae-6101-6dd1-9b13bf0751fa@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-05-02 16:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> And RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex() pretty clearly sets it *heapOid:
>
> * Lock level here should match reindex_index() heap lock. If the OID
> * isn't valid, it means the index as concurrently dropped, which is
> * not a problem for us; just return normally.
> */
> *heapOid = IndexGetRelation(relId, true);
It sets it but uses it only internally. There is no code path that
passes in a non-zero heapOid, and there is no code path that does
anything with the heapOid passed back out.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-02 20:42:05 | Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-02 20:16:19 | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |