From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: REINDEX SCHEMA |
Date: | 2014-12-09 07:56:01 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqR4OirpXKD82cWyeKgaM1uWceTzq+a01hNPo_29A5Ayrg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> REINDEX SCHEMA
>
> The results from jagarundi and leech suggest that more attention needs to
> be paid to ensuring that tables are reindexed in a consistent order.
> Either that, or you're going to have to dumb down the regression test.
Hm. The diff is clear:
***************
*** 2852,2859 ****
SET SESSION ROLE user_reindex;
ERROR: role "user_reindex" does not exist
REINDEX SCHEMA schema_to_reindex;
- NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table1" was reindexed
NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table2" was reindexed
-- Clean up
RESET ROLE;
DROP ROLE user_reindex;
--- 2852,2859 ----
SET SESSION ROLE user_reindex;
ERROR: role "user_reindex" does not exist
REINDEX SCHEMA schema_to_reindex;
NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table2" was reindexed
+ NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table1" was reindexed
-- Clean up
RESET ROLE;
DROP ROLE user_reindex;
We could store the results in an array instead of a list and apply a
qsort to it, but that would be costly if there are many relations
involved in the reindex. Hence I guess raising client_min_messages to
warning is fine? I'll send a patch in the REINDEX SCHEMA thread,
groupped with a couple of other fixes to problems I just found.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-12-09 08:00:29 | Re: pgsql: REINDEX SCHEMA |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-09 06:31:24 | Re: pgsql: REINDEX SCHEMA |