On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 06:26:56PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Are there any bad effects of this bug on PG 12?
Not that I could guess, except a bloat of pg_depend... The more you
issue REINDEX CONCURRENTLY on an index, the more duplicated entries
accumulate in pg_depend as the dependencies of t
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:01:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:43:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Attached is a patch to fix the issue. As we know that the old index
> > will have a definition and dependencies that match with the old one, I
> > think that we s
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:43:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Attached is a patch to fix the issue. As we know that the old index
> will have a definition and dependencies that match with the old one, I
> think that we should just remove any dependency records on the new
> index before moving
Hi all,
While digging into a separate issue, I have found a new bug with
REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. Once the new index is built and validated,
a couple of things are done at the swap phase, like switching
constraints, comments, and dependencies. The current code moves all
the dependency entries of pg
