| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>,Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
| Date: | 2019-04-30 04:44:26 |
| Message-ID: | BC406D10-146C-4495-AC5E-492CADBFA144@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On April 29, 2019 9:37:33 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> I've pushed the master bits, and the other branches are running
>> check-world right now and I'll push soon unless something breaks
>(it's a
>> bit annoying that <= 9.6 can't run check-world in parallel...).
>
>Seems like putting reindexes of pg_class into a test script that runs
>in parallel with other DDL wasn't a hot idea.
Saw that. Will try to reproduce (and if necessary either run separately or revert). But isn't that somewhat broken? They're not run in a transaction, so the locking shouldn't be deadlock prone.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-30 04:50:20 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-30 04:37:33 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |