| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements |
| Date: | 2021-01-18 20:27:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20210118202734.GA25753@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Jan-18, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 15:29, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Would this not need to be the following? Right now, it resets
> potentially older h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable (which is set in the
> PROC_IN_SAFE_IC branch).
>
> > + if (statusFlags & PROC_IN_SAFE_IC)
> > + h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable =
> > + TransactionIdOlder(h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
> > + else
> > + {
> > + h->data_oldest_nonremovable =
> > + TransactionIdOlder(h->data_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
> > + h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable =
> > + TransactionIdOlder(h->catalog_oldest_nonremovable, xmin);
> > + }
Oops, you're right.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-01-18 20:29:53 | Re: PG vs LLVM 12 on seawasp, next round |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2021-01-18 20:25:49 | Re: {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements |