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 23:18:19 |
Message-ID: | 17927.1556839099@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:
>> I just finished a successful run of the core regression tests with CCA.
>> Given the calendar, I think that's about as much CCA testing as I should
>> do personally. I'll make a cleanup pass on this patch and try to get it
>> pushed within a few hours, if there are not objections.
> Sounds good to me.
Pushed --- hopefully, we have enough time before Sunday that we can get
reasonably complete buildfarm testing.
I did manually verify that all branches get through "reindex table
pg_class" and "reindex index pg_class_oid_index" under
CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, as well as a normal-mode check-world. But CCA
world runs seem like a good idea.
As far as a permanent test scheme goes, I noticed while testing that
src/bin/scripts/t/090_reindexdb.pl and
src/bin/scripts/t/091_reindexdb_all.pl seem to be giving us a good
deal of coverage on this already, although of course they never caught the
problem with non-HOT updates, nor any of the deadlock issues. Still,
it seems like maybe a core regression test that's been lobotomized enough
to be perfectly parallel-safe might not give us more coverage than can
be had there.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-05-03 04:45:59 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-02 21:12:03 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |