On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> REINDEX SCHEMA > > The results from jagarundi and leech suggest that more attention needs to > be paid to ensuring that tables are reindexed in a consistent order. > Either that, or you're going to have to dumb down the regression test.
Hm. The diff is clear: *************** *** 2852,2859 **** SET SESSION ROLE user_reindex; ERROR: role "user_reindex" does not exist REINDEX SCHEMA schema_to_reindex; - NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table1" was reindexed NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table2" was reindexed -- Clean up RESET ROLE; DROP ROLE user_reindex; --- 2852,2859 ---- SET SESSION ROLE user_reindex; ERROR: role "user_reindex" does not exist REINDEX SCHEMA schema_to_reindex; NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table2" was reindexed + NOTICE: table "schema_to_reindex.table1" was reindexed -- Clean up RESET ROLE; DROP ROLE user_reindex; We could store the results in an array instead of a list and apply a qsort to it, but that would be costly if there are many relations involved in the reindex. Hence I guess raising client_min_messages to warning is fine? I'll send a patch in the REINDEX SCHEMA thread, groupped with a couple of other fixes to problems I just found. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
