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 should just remove any dependency records on the new > > index before moving the new set of dependencies from the old to the > > new index. The patch includes regression tests that scan pg_depend to > > check that everything remains consistent after REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. > > > > Any thoughts? > > I have done more tests for this one through the day, and committed the > patch. There is still one bug pending related to partitioned indexes > where REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is cancelled after phase 4 (swap) has > committed. I am still looking more into that.
Are there any bad effects of this bug on PG 12? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
