Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1hPC91-000644-1P
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 20:29:27 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1hPC8z-0007OH-Fe
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 20:29:25 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1hPC8z-0007OA-7P
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 20:29:25 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1hPC8x-0003Ny-74
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 20:29:24 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4AKTIU7016280;
	Fri, 10 May 2019 16:29:18 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Subject: Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since
 9.6
In-reply-to: <20190510201124.qrsrn3fcmxe26vqm@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <1105.1557115018@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <037F6AFC-73CC-41B3-A0F0-75AF5AE06372@anarazel.de>
 <1236.1557115204@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190506070105.2jo5f4vah5mo32m2@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <28030.1557240619@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190507155931.pv54deg543goz73h@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <2283.1557245257@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190507160913.57s2ensw4h4g2wxk@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <2538.1557245683@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190507161711.cjzajb7rgo6v3d4i@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20190510201124.qrsrn3fcmxe26vqm@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Fri, 10 May 2019 13:11:24 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16278.1557520157.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 16:29:18 -0400
Message-ID: <16279.1557520158@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-05-07 09:17:11 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Well, it rejiggers the way table locks are acquired for all REINDEX
>> INDEX commands, not just in the CONCURRENTLY. But yea, it's probably
>> easy to catch issues there on user tables.

> Pushed now.

OK.  I marked the open issue as closed.

			regards, tom lane