| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
| Date: | 2019-05-02 16:02:44 |
| Message-ID: | 5531.1556812964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-02 11:41:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But don't we need to worry about resetting relfrozenxid?
> Indexes don't have that though? We couldn't do it for pg_class itself,
> but that's not a problem here.
Hmm. Again, that seems like the sort of assumption that could bite
us later. But maybe we could add some assertions that the new values
match the old? I'll experiment.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-05-02 16:02:59 | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-05-02 15:57:36 | Re: pg_upgrade --clone error checking |