From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 21:02:53 |
Message-ID: | 20190502210253.lt4p46dvllxarajg@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
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.
> 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. I agree
that pushing after the minors would make sense, it's too subtle to go
for it now.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next 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 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-02 20:54:11 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |