On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 10:39:53PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Copying this info in index_concurrently_swap seems a bit strange - we're
> copying other stuff there, but this is modifying something we've already
> copied before. I understand why we do it there to make this backpatchable,
> but maybe it'd be good to mention this in a comment (or at least the commit
> message). We could do this in the backbranches only and the "correct" way in
> master, but that does not seem worth it.
Thanks.
> One minor comment - the code says this:
>
> /* no need for a refresh if both match */
> if (attstattarget == att->attstattarget)
> continue;
>
> Isn't that just a different way to say "attstattarget is not default")?
For REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, yes. I was thinking here about the case
where this code is used for other purposes in the future, where
attstattarget may not be -1.
I'll see about applying this stuff after the next version is tagged
then.
--
Michael