Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently
От
Bossart, Nathan
Тема
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently
Дата
Msg-id
E5481F15-E6D0-445C-94F1-8B4B9D40DA3D@amazon.com
Ответ на
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently (Michael Paquier)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Maxim Boguk <maxim.boguk@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Alexey Ermakov <alexey.ermakov@dataegret.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
On 12/7/21, 6:48 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:04:54PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> For example, could holding the locks longer impact performance? > > Do you have anything particular in mind? It seems to me that this > boils down to the same lock taken on the parent table based on its > RTE. I don't have anything concrete in mind. >> I think it would be good to expand the comments above these changes to >> explain why we are keeping the lock. That might help avoid similar >> problems in the future. > > Yes, I have added a note, and applied the patch after looking at it > again this morning. The test cannot be used in 12 so I have removed > it from REL_12_STABLE, as allow_system_table_mods is a PGC_POSTMASTER > there. Great! Nathan
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления
От: PG Bug reporting form
Дата: