Fwd: BUG #18016: REINDEX TABLE failure
От | Gurjeet Singh |
---|---|
Тема | Fwd: BUG #18016: REINDEX TABLE failure |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABwTF4VLS44Ypm90NsiGcyRbtdfioudUKcRUivXuQ8x1jPECPw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #18016: REINDEX TABLE failure (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fwd: BUG #18016: REINDEX TABLE failure
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
(Re-sending with -hackers list removed, to avoid message being held for moderation) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 2:53 PM On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:50 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 09:35:05AM -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > > The code block movement involved slightly more thought and care than I > > had previously imagined. As explained in comments in the patch, the > > enumeration and suppression of indexes on the main table must happen > > before any CommandCounterIncrement() call, hence the > > reindex-the-toast-table-if-any code had to be placed after that > > enumeration. > > Do we need to add another CCI after reindexing the TOAST table? It looks > like we presently do so between reindexing each relation, including the > TOAST table. Yes, we do need to do a CCI after reindex the relation's toast table. But note that it is done by the recursive call to reindex_relation(), right after it calls reindex_index(). > + * This should be done after the suppression of the use of indexes (above), > + * because the recursive call to reindex_relation() below will invoke > + * CommandCounterIncrement(), which may prevent enumeration of the indexes > + * on the table. > > I'm not following this. We've already obtained the list of index OIDs > before this point. Does this create problems when we try to open and lock > the relations? And if so, how? This comment is calling out the fact that there's a recursive call to reindex_relation() inside the 'if' code block, and that that reindex_relation() calls CCI. Hence this 'if' code block should _not_ be placed before the the calls to RelationGetIndexList() and SetReindexPending(). Because if we do, then the CCI done by reindex_relation() will impact what RelationGetIndexList() sees. This is to match the expectation set for the REINDEX_REL_SUPPRESS_INDEX_USE flag. * REINDEX_REL_SUPPRESS_INDEX_USE: if true, the relation was just completely ... * ... The caller is required to call us *without* * having made the rebuilt table visible by doing CommandCounterIncrement; * we'll do CCI after having collected the index list. (This way we can still * use catalog indexes while collecting the list.) I hope that makes sense. Best regards, Gurjeet http://Gurje.et
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: