| From: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations |
| Date: | 2020-09-01 10:25:27 |
| Message-ID: | a63909b4-352b-d06a-5670-a6eba92223e9@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01.09.2020 04:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have added some extra comments. There is one in
> ReindexRelationConcurrently() to mention that there should be no extra
> use of MISSING_OK once the list of indexes is built as session locks
> are taken where needed.
Great, it took me a moment to understand the logic around index list
check at first pass.
> Does the version attached look fine to you? I have done one round of
> indentation while on it.
Yes, this version is good.
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Georgios | 2020-09-01 10:27:31 | Re: Include access method in listTables output |
| Previous Message | Michael Banck | 2020-09-01 10:22:29 | [patch] Fix checksum verification in base backups for zero page headers |