Re: v12.0: segfault in reindex CONCURRENTLY

On 2019-Oct-17, Michael Paquier wrote:

> You may not have a backtrace, but I think that you are right:
> WaitForLockers() gets called in index_drop() with progress reporting
> enabled.  index_drop() would also be taken by REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
> through performMultipleDeletions() but we cannot know if it gets used
> for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY or for DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY as it goes
> through the central deletion machinery, so we have to mark progress
> reporting as true anyway.  Maybe that's worth a comment in index_drop
> when calling WaitForLockers() because it is not actually that obvious,
> say like that:

Hmm, I wonder if it isn't the right solution to set 'progress' to false
in that spot, instead.  index_drop says it must only be called by the
dependency machinery; are we depending on that to pass-through the need
to update progress status?  I'm going over that code now.


-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services