Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails
Date
Msg-id 20200114084709.GI1515@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-bugs
Hi Heikki,

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 12:06:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As the patch has been heavily modified, I am switching it back to
> "Needs Review" for now and I'd like to discuss more about the lock
> upgrade risks, particularly if it is considered worth the effort for
> temporary relations.  Thoughts are welcome.

You are registered as a reviewer for this patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2358/

Are you planning to look at it?  Do you have some thoughts to share
about what I wrote previously?

Discarding the lock upgrade considerations is possible.  Another
approach would be, instead of ignoring CONCURRENTLY for temporary
tables, to fail if the operation is run, and ignore these when a
dabatase-wide reindex concurrently happens.  This was not liked much
at the beginning of the thread though.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: Oracle To Community Postgresql Migration
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq parameter parsing problem