REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200813043805.GE11663@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: REINDEX SCHEMA/DATABASE/SYSTEM weak with dropped relations
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all, While working on support for REINDEX for partitioned relations, I have noticed an old bug in the logic of ReindexMultipleTables(): the list of relations to process is built in a first transaction, and then each table is done in an independent transaction, but we don't actually check that the relation still exists when doing the real work. I think that a complete fix involves two things: 1) Addition of one SearchSysCacheExists1() at the beginning of the loop processing each item in the list in ReindexMultipleTables(). This would protect from a relation dropped, but that would not be enough if ReindexMultipleTables() is looking at a relation dropped before we lock it in reindex_table() or ReindexRelationConcurrently(). Still that's simple, cheaper, and would protect from most problems. 2) Be completely water-proof and adopt a logic close to what we do for VACUUM where we try to open a relation, but leave if it does not exist. This can be achieved with just some try_relation_open() calls with the correct lock used, and we also need to have a new REINDEXOPT_* flag to control this behavior conditionally. 2) and 1) are complementary, but 2) is invasive, so based on the lack of complaints we have seen that does not seem really worth backpatching to me, and I think that we could also just have 1) on stable branches as a minimal fix, to take care of most of the problems that could show up to users. Attached is a patch to fix all that, with a cheap isolation test that fails on HEAD with a cache lookup failure. I am adding that to the next CF for now, and I would rather fix this issue before moving on with REINDEX for partitioned relations as fixing this issue reduces the use of session locks for partition trees. Any thoughts? -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: