On 2020-Sep-01, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Actually I think you're wrong; if I put it before the check, then if I
> > do "drop index concurrently some_temp_partitioned_index" then it would
> > fail; but if I put it after the check, then it does a normal
> > non-concurrent index and it works. I'm not sure it's necessary to break
> > a case that otherwise works ...
>
> Hmm. Right. I agree that it would be better to not break that case.
> And it means that there is a gap in the regression tests here, so I'd
> like to add a test. Please see the attached to achieve that, which
> includes your own code changes and the doc parts
Agreed -- thanks for that.
> (I didn't see a point in changing the new sentence for temporary
> relations as the follow-up <para> mentions that).
Yeah, I had come to the same conclusion.
Pushed now to all branches, thanks.
Thanks, Jan, for reporting this bug.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
