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: | 2019-04-30 18:41:00 |
Message-ID: | 16277.1556649660@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 2019-04-30 14:05:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Possibly we could run them in a TAP test that configures a cluster
>> with autovac disabled?
> Hm. Would it be sufficient to instead move them to a non-concurrent
> test group, and stick a BEGIN; LOCK pg_class, ....; COMMIT; around it?
Doubt it. Maybe you could get away with it given that autovacuum and
autoanalyze only do non-transactional updates to pg_class, but that
seems like a pretty shaky assumption.
> This is a pretty finnicky area of the code, with obviously not enough
> test coverage. I'm inclined to remove them from the back branches, and
> try to get them working in master?
I think trying to get this "working" is a v13 task now. We've obviously
never tried to stress the case before, so you're neither fixing a
regression nor fixing a new-in-v12 issue.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-04-30 18:43:59 | Re: Turning off enable_partition_pruning doesn't |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2019-04-30 18:36:36 | Re: doc: improve PG 12 to_timestamp()/to_date() wording |