On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >> Hmm. There could be an argument here for skipping invalid toast
> >> indexes within reindex_index(), because we are sure about having at
> >> least one valid toast index at anytime, and these are not concerned
> >> with CIC.
> >
> > Or even automatically drop any invalid index on toast relation in
> > reindex_relation, since those can't be due to a failed CIC?
>
> No, I don't like much outsmarting REINDEX with more index drops than
> it needs to do. And this would not take care of the case with REINDEX
> INDEX done directly on a toast index.
Well, we could still do both but I get the objection. Then skipping
invalid toast indexes in reindex_relation looks like the best fix.
