| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Duplicate entries in pg_depend after REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2019-11-05 23:26:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20191105232656.GB26542@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:01:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:43:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Attached is a patch to fix the issue. As we know that the old index
> > will have a definition and dependencies that match with the old one, I
> > think that we should just remove any dependency records on the new
> > index before moving the new set of dependencies from the old to the
> > new index. The patch includes regression tests that scan pg_depend to
> > check that everything remains consistent after REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I have done more tests for this one through the day, and committed the
> patch. There is still one bug pending related to partitioned indexes
> where REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is cancelled after phase 4 (swap) has
> committed. I am still looking more into that.
Are there any bad effects of this bug on PG 12?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-05 23:54:22 | Should we make scary sounding, but actually routine, errors less scary? |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2019-11-05 22:53:35 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |