Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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