From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | jan(dot)mussler(at)zalando(dot)de, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message. |
Date: | 2020-09-01 01:25:53 |
Message-ID: | 20200901012553.GA17180@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2020-Aug-29, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 08:22:42AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Yes, adding that to RemoveRelations() makes sense. Thanks for the
> > patch.
>
> I got some room to test the patch, and the place of the check looks
> good to me. I think that I would move the new check before we set
> PERFORM_DELETION_CONCURRENTLY for non-temporary relations though, as a
> partition tree can be temporary as long as all its members are
> temporary.
Actually I think you're wrong; if I put it before the check, then if I
do "drop index concurrently some_temp_partitioned_index" then it would
fail; but if I put it after the check, then it does a normal
non-concurrent index and it works. I'm not sure it's necessary to break
a case that otherwise works ...
(But for that to work I need to test the flag in the bitmask rather than
the option in the command, as in the attached).
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Raise-error-on-concurrent-drop-of-partitioned-ind.patch | text/x-diff | 3.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-09-01 01:30:21 | Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message. |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-08-31 20:27:51 | Re: BUG #16601: Restore Issue |