On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> 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 anytime, and these are not concerned >> with CIC. > > Or even automatically drop any invalid index on toast relation in > reindex_relation, since those can't be due to a failed CIC?
No, I don't like much outsmarting REINDEX with more index drops than it needs to do. And this would not take care of the case with REINDEX INDEX done directly on a toast index. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
