Re: reindex concurrently and two toast indexes
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-03-05T03:53:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:21:45AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Thanks for the patch! I started to look at it during the weekend, but > I got interrupted and unfortunately didn't had time to look at it > since. No problem, thanks for looking at it. I have looked at it again this morning, and applied it. > The fix looks good to me. I also tried multiple failure scenario and > it's unsurprisingly working just fine. Should we add some regression > tests for that? I guess most of it could be borrowed from the patch > to fix the toast index issue I sent last week. I have doubts when it comes to use a strategy based on pg_cancel_backend() and a match of application_name (see for example 5ad72ce but I cannot find the associated thread). I think that we could design something more robust here and usable by all tests, with two things coming into my mind: - A new meta-command for isolation tests to be able to cancel a session with PQcancel(). - Fault injection in the backend. For the case of this thread, the cancellation command would be a better match. -- Michael
Commits
-
Prevent reindex of invalid indexes on TOAST tables
- 8bca5f93547c 12.3 landed
- 61d7c7bce368 13.0 landed
-
Fix more issues with dependency handling at swap phase of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
- 26876127be2c 12.3 landed
- fbcf0871123b 13.0 landed