On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> REINDEX SCHEMA
>
> The results from jagarundi and leech suggest that more attention needs to
> be paid to ensuring that tables are reindexed in a consistent order.
> Either that, or you're going to have to dumb down the regression test.
Hm. The diff is clear:
***************
*** 2852,2859 ****
SET SESSION ROLE user_reindex;
ERROR: role "user_reindex" does not exist
REINDEX SCHEMA schema_to_reindex;
- NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table1" was reindexed
NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table2" was reindexed
-- Clean up
RESET ROLE;
DROP ROLE user_reindex;
--- 2852,2859 ----
SET SESSION ROLE user_reindex;
ERROR: role "user_reindex" does not exist
REINDEX SCHEMA schema_to_reindex;
NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table2" was reindexed
+ NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table1" was reindexed
-- Clean up
RESET ROLE;
DROP ROLE user_reindex;
We could store the results in an array instead of a list and apply a
qsort to it, but that would be costly if there are many relations
involved in the reindex. Hence I guess raising client_min_messages to
warning is fine? I'll send a patch in the REINDEX SCHEMA thread,
groupped with a couple of other fixes to problems I just found.
--
Michael