From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
Date: | 2019-05-02 21:12:03 |
Message-ID: | 11237.1556831523@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-02 16:54:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How do you feel about the other patch to rejigger the order of operations
>> in CommandCounterIncrement? I think that's a bug, but it's probably
>> noncritical for most people. What I'm leaning towards for that one is
>> waiting till after the minor releases, then pushing it to all branches.
> I've not yet have the mental cycles to look more deeply into it. I
> thought your explanation why the current way is wrong made sense, but I
> wanted to look a bit more into how it came to be how it is now.
Well, I wrote that code, and I can say pretty confidently that this
failure mode just didn't occur to me at the time.
> I agree
> that pushing after the minors would make sense, it's too subtle to go
> for it now.
It is subtle, and given that it's been there this long, I don't feel
urgency to fix it Right Now. I think we're already taking plenty of
risk back-patching the REINDEX patch :-(
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-02 23:18:19 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-02 21:02:53 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |