On 2022-Jul-25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:49:50AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2022-Jul-23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> By the way, it seems that 83011ce also broke the case of "REINDEX
> >> DATABASE CONCURRENTLY", where the parser missed the addition of a
> >> DefElem for "concurrently" in this case.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> For this one, we have a gap in the test, actually. It seems to me
> that we'd better make sure that the OID of the indexes rebuilt
> concurrently is changed. There is a REINDEX DATABASE CONCURRENTLY
> already in the TAP tests, and the only thing that would be needed for
> the job is an extra query that compares the OID saved before the
> reindex with the one in the catalogs after the fact..
Agreed. I think you already have the query for that elsewhere in the
test, so it's just a matter of copying it from there.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No tengo por qué estar de acuerdo con lo que pienso"
(Carlos Caszeli)