| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-03-16 18:31:44 |
| Message-ID: | AD825BCB-F69F-4DD9-A371-8EA705747081@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013/03/17, at 0:35, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
>
> I found pg_dump dumps even the invalid index. But pg_dump should
> ignore the invalid index?
> This problem exists even without REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch. So we might need to
> implement the bugfix patch separately rather than including the bugfix
> code in your patches.
> Probably the backport would be required. Thought?
Hum... Indeed, they shouldn't be included... Perhaps this is already known?
>
> We should add the concurrent reindex option into reindexdb command?
> This can be really
> separate patch, though.
Yes, they definitely should be separated for simplicity.
Btw, those patches seem trivial, I'll send them.
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-03-16 18:50:56 | Re: Should array_length() Return NULL |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-03-16 18:26:34 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |