| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-03-16 15:35:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwH=6AqXdfT5yp7CkiMBN9gKJS8dw9t03jM6TL7r0SNWRw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
I found pg_dump dumps even the invalid index. But pg_dump should
ignore the invalid index?
This problem exists even without REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch. So we might need to
implement the bugfix patch separately rather than including the bugfix
code in your patches.
Probably the backport would be required. Thought?
We should add the concurrent reindex option into reindexdb command?
This can be really
separate patch, though.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-03-16 15:59:27 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2013-03-16 15:25:39 | Re: Should array_length() Return NULL |