| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Manuel Rigger <rigger(dot)manuel(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails |
| Date: | 2019-11-13 16:45:34 |
| Message-ID: | 19198.1573663534@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-11-13 10:59:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not real clear why there would be any point in (RE)INDEX
>> CONCURRENTLY on a temp table anyway, since no other session could
>> be using it.
> I guess it's not necessarily always clear in all contexts that one is
> dealing with a temp table, rather than a normal table.
That's a good point.
> I wonder if we instead ought to just ignore the CONCURRENTLY when
> targetting a temp table? That'd be a correct optimization for temp
> tables, and would fix the issue at hand...
Oh, I like that idea. Keeps applications from having to think
about this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-11-13 16:50:52 | Re: Unexpected "cache lookup failed for collation 0" failure |
| Previous Message | Cagri Biroglu | 2019-11-13 16:39:59 | repomd.xml update |