On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:09:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:04:27AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> Agreed.
>
> Thanks for checking the patch.
And applied as 61d7c7b. Regarding the isolation tests, let's
brainstorm on what we can do, but I am afraid that it is
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:04:27AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 02:52:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> For the index-level operation, issuing a WARNING is not consistent
>> with the existing practice to use an ERROR, which is more adapted as
>> the operation is done
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 02:52:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 01:36:48PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > v4 attached, which doesn't prevent a REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY on any
> > invalid
> > non-TOAST index anymore.
>
> Thanks. The position of the error check
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 01:36:48PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I guess there's room for improvement
> in the comments about that, since the ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED usage is
> quite misleading there.
>
> v4 attached, which doesn't prevent a REINDEX
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:38:44AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 05:57:07PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > I agree that the approach wasn't quite robust. I'll try to look at adding a
> > new command for isolationtester, but that's probably not something we want
> > to
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 05:57:07PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I agree that the approach wasn't quite robust. I'll try to look at adding a
> new command for isolationtester, but that's probably not something we want to
> put in pg13?
Yes, that's too late.
> Note that while looking at it, I
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 12:53:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:21:45AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch! I started to look at it during the weekend, but
> > I got interrupted and unfortunately didn't had time to look at it
> > since.
>
> No
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:21:45AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I started to look at it during the weekend, but
> I got interrupted and unfortunately didn't had time to look at it
> since.
No problem, thanks for looking at it. I have looked at it again this
morning, and
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:15 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 06:25:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Or actually, a more simple solution is to abuse of the two existing
> > routines so as the dependency switch is done the other way around,
> > from the new index to the
On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 06:25:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Or actually, a more simple solution is to abuse of the two existing
> routines so as the dependency switch is done the other way around,
> from the new index to the old one. That would visibly work because
> there is no CCI
On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:06:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Attached is a draft patch to take care of that problem for HEAD. It
> still needs a lot of polishing (variable names are not actually old
> or new anymore, etc.) but that's enough to show the idea. If a version
> reaches PG12, we
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 09:07:35AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> While looking at it, I see that invalid indexes seem to leaked when the table
> is dropped, with no way to get rid of them:
>
> Shouldn't DROP TABLE be fixed to also drop invalid indexes?
Hmm. The problem here is that I think that
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:32:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 04:06:57PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Sorry, I just realized that I forgot to commit the last changes before
> > sending
> > the patch, so here's the correct v2.
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> > + if
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 04:06:57PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Sorry, I just realized that I forgot to commit the last changes before sending
> the patch, so here's the correct v2.
Thanks for the patch.
> + if (skipit)
> + {
> + ereport(NOTICE,
> +
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 08:09:24AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:39:49AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 02:29:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:08:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Forking old, long thread:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/36712441546604286%40sas1-890ba5c2334a.qloud-c.yandex.net
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:18:06PM
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:39:49AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > >> Hmm. There could be an
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Hmm. There could be an argument here for skipping invalid toast
> >> indexes within reindex_index(), because
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hmm. There could be an argument here for skipping invalid toast
>> indexes within reindex_index(), because we are sure about having at
>> least one valid toast index at
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:08:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Forking old, long thread:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/36712441546604286%40sas1-890ba5c2334a.qloud-c.yandex.net
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:18:06PM +0300,
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:08:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Forking old, long thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/36712441546604286%40sas1-890ba5c2334a.qloud-c.yandex.net
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:18:06PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>> About reindex invalid indexes - i found
Forking old, long thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/36712441546604286%40sas1-890ba5c2334a.qloud-c.yandex.net
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:18:06PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> About reindex invalid indexes - i found one good question in archives [1]:
> how about toast indexes?
> I
22 matches
Mail list logo
