Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 21:25:53 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: 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.
Message-ID: <20200901012553.GA17180@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200829013433.GA1529@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2020-Aug-29, Michael Paquier wrote:

> 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.

Actually I think you're wrong; if I put it before the check, then if I
do "drop index concurrently some_temp_partitioned_index" then it would
fail; but if I put it after the check, then it does a normal
non-concurrent index and it works.  I'm not sure it's necessary to break
a case that otherwise works ...

(But for that to work I need to test the flag in the bitmask rather than
the option in the command, as in the attached).

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="v2-0001-Raise-error-on-concurrent-drop-of-partitioned-ind.patch"