Hi, On 2019-05-07 09:17:11 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2019-05-07 12:14:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > > On 2019-05-07 12:07:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> The number of deadlock failures is kind of annoying, so I'd rather remove > > >> the tests from HEAD sooner than later. What issues around that do you > > >> think remain that these tests would be helpful for? > > > > > I was wondering about > > > https://postgr.es/m/20190430151735.wi52sxjvxsjvaxxt%40alap3.anarazel.de > > > but perhaps it's too unlikely to break anything the tests would detect > > > though. > > > > Since we don't allow REINDEX CONCURRENTLY on system catalogs, I'm not > > seeing any particular overlap there ... > > Well, it rejiggers the way table locks are acquired for all REINDEX > INDEX commands, not just in the CONCURRENTLY. But yea, it's probably > easy to catch issues there on user tables.
Pushed now. Greetings, Andres Freund
