Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:44:08 -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: <20200901174408.GA6628@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200901025835.GC3511@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Sep-01, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 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 ...
> 
> Hmm.  Right.  I agree that it would be better to not break that case.
> And it means that there is a gap in the regression tests here, so I'd
> like to add a test.  Please see the attached to achieve that, which
> includes your own code changes and the doc parts

Agreed -- thanks for that.

> (I didn't see a point in changing the new sentence for temporary
> relations as the follow-up <para> mentions that).

Yeah, I had come to the same conclusion.

Pushed now to all branches, thanks.

Thanks, Jan, for reporting this bug.

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