Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message.
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200901174408.GA6628@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message. (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message.
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 2020-Sep-01, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Actually I think you're wrong; if I put it before the check, then if I > > do "drop index concurrently some_temp_partitioned_index" then it would > > fail; but if I put it after the check, then it does a normal > > non-concurrent index and it works. I'm not sure it's necessary to break > > a case that otherwise works ... > > Hmm. Right. I agree that it would be better to not break that case. > And it means that there is a gap in the regression tests here, so I'd > like to add a test. Please see the attached to achieve that, which > includes your own code changes and the doc parts Agreed -- thanks for that. > (I didn't see a point in changing the new sentence for temporary > relations as the follow-up <para> mentions that). Yeah, I had come to the same conclusion. Pushed now to all branches, thanks. Thanks, Jan, for reporting this bug. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: