On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:29:37PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Looks good.
Thanks for the review, and reminding me about it :)
While on it, I have removed some comments around the error messages
because they actually don't bring more information.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP sig
On 2019-May-27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:20:58AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I notice your patch changes "catalog relations" to "system catalogs".
> > I think we predominantly prefer the latter, so that part of your change
> > seems OK. (In passing, I noticed we h
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 4:02 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:20:58AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I wonder if we really want to abolish all distinction between "cannot do
> > X" and "Y is not supported". I take the former to mean that the
> > operation is impossible to
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:20:58AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I wonder if we really want to abolish all distinction between "cannot do
> X" and "Y is not supported". I take the former to mean that the
> operation is impossible to do for some reason, while the latter means we
> just haven't imp
On 2019-May-27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:17:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Perhaps something like the attached for the REINDEX portion would make
> > the world a better place? What do you think?
>
> Alvaro, do you have extra thoughts about this patch improving
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:17:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Perhaps something like the attached for the REINDEX portion would make
> the world a better place? What do you think?
Alvaro, do you have extra thoughts about this patch improving the
error message consistency for REINDEX CONCURRE
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:32:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I do :-)
And actually I am happy to see somebody raising that point. The
current log messages are quite inconsistent for a couple of years now
but I did not bother changing anything other than the new strings per
the feedback I got
On 2019-May-09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:28:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> >> No problem to do that. I'll brush up all that once you commit the
> >> first piece you have come up with, and reuse the new API of catalog.c
> >> you are introducin
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 02:08:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> LGTM, thanks.
Thanks for double-checking, committed. I am closing the open item.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:28:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Pushed my stuff, have at it.
> Thanks. Attached is what I get to after scanning the error messages
> in indexcmds.c and index.c. Perhaps you have more comments about it?
LGTM, thanks.
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:28:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> No problem to do that. I'll brush up all that once you commit the
>> first piece you have come up with, and reuse the new API of catalog.c
>> you are introducing based on the table OID.
>
> Pushed my stuff, ha
Michael Paquier writes:
> No problem to do that. I'll brush up all that once you commit the
> first piece you have come up with, and reuse the new API of catalog.c
> you are introducing based on the table OID.
Pushed my stuff, have at it.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 08:31:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> With IsCatalogClass() removed, the only dependency with Form_pg_class
>> comes from IsToastClass() which is not used at all except in
>> IsSystemClass(). Wouldn't it be better to remove entirely
>> IsToastClass
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:19:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> With this, the Form_pg_class argument to IsCatalogClass becomes
>> vestigial. I'm tempted to get rid of that function altogether in
>> favor of direct calls to IsCatalogRelationOid, but haven't done so
>> in th
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:19:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> That's nothing but a hack, and the reason it's necessary is that
> index_create will throw error if IsCatalogRelation is true, which
> it will be for information_schema TOAST tables --- but not for their
> parent tables that are being exam
I wrote:
> After looking around a bit, I propose that we invent
> "IsCatalogRelationOid(Oid reloid)" (not wedded to that name), which
> is a wrapper around IsCatalogClass() that does the needful syscache
> lookup for you. Aside from this use-case, it could be used in
> sepgsql/dml.c, which I see i
On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 05:45:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In the other place, checking IsSystemNamespace isn't even
> approximately the correct way to proceed, since it fails to reject
> reindexing system catalogs' toast tables.
Good point. I overlooked that part. It is easy enough to have a t
I wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> What do you think about something like the attached then? HEAD does
>> not check after system indexes with REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY, and I
>> have moved all the catalog-related tests to reindex_catalog.sql.
> OK as far as the wording goes, but now that I l
Michael Paquier writes:
> The message you are referring to in index_create() has been introduced
> as of e093dcdd with the introduction of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, and
> it can be perfectly hit without REINDEX:
> =# show allow_system_table_mods;
> allow_system_table_mods
> -
On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 11:00:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not excited about rewording longstanding errors. These two are
> new though (aren't they?)
The message you are referring to in index_create() has been introduced
as of e093dcdd with the introduction of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, and
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:06:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> regression=# reindex index concurrently pg_class_oid_index;
>> psql: ERROR: concurrent reindex is not supported for catalog relations
>> regression=# reindex table concurrently pg_class;
>> psql: ERROR: concu
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:06:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In view of the REINDEX-on-pg_class kerfuffle that we're currently
> sorting through, I was very glad to see that the concurrent reindex
> code doesn't even try:
>
> regression=# reindex index concurrently pg_class_oid_index;
> psql: ERROR
In view of the REINDEX-on-pg_class kerfuffle that we're currently
sorting through, I was very glad to see that the concurrent reindex
code doesn't even try:
regression=# reindex index concurrently pg_class_oid_index;
psql: ERROR: concurrent reindex is not supported for catalog relations
regressio
23 matches
Mail list logo
