On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> 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 <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.
Well, we could still do both but I get the objection. Then skipping invalid toast indexes in reindex_relation looks like the best fix.
