| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right? |
| Date: | 2019-05-03 15:23:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20190503152321.pvmfdqx2togymbje@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-03 09:37:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is still deadlock prone because of
> WaitForOlderSnapshots(), so this doesn't actually fix your test case,
> but that seems unrelated to this particular issue.
Right.
I've not tested the change, but it looks reasonable to me. The change
of moving the logic the reset of *heapOid to the unlock perhaps is
debatable, but I think it's OK.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-03 15:44:04 | error messages in extended statistics |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-05-03 15:06:58 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |