From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: jan.mussler@zalando.de
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:34:33 +0900
Message-ID: <20200829013433.GA1529@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200827232242.GB21986@paquier.xyz>
References: <20200827172519.GA5940@alvherre.pgsql>
<20200827192218.GA5787@alvherre.pgsql>
<20200827232242.GB21986@paquier.xyz>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 08:22:42AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, adding that to RemoveRelations() makes sense. Thanks for the
> patch.
I got some room to test the patch, and the place of the check looks
good to me. I think that I would move the new check before we set
PERFORM_DELETION_CONCURRENTLY for non-temporary relations though, as a
partition tree can be temporary as long as all its members are
temporary.
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, jan.mussler@zalando.de, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16594: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails on partitioned table with a non helpful error message.
In-Reply-To: <20200829013433.GA1529@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox