Re: v12.0: segfault in reindex CONCURRENTLY

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
Subject: Re: v12.0: segfault in reindex CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2019-10-17 08:50:24
Message-ID: 20191017085024.GG17439@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:33:22AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm, I wonder if it isn't the right solution to set 'progress' to false
> in that spot, instead. index_drop says it must only be called by the
> dependency machinery; are we depending on that to pass-through the need
> to update progress status? I'm going over that code now.

pgstat_progress_end_command() is done for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY after
the concurrent drop, so it made sense to me to still report any PID
REINDEX CONC is waiting for at this stage.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2019-10-17 08:52:19 Re: Change atoi to strtol in same place
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-10-17 08:41:19 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum