On 2022-Jul-25, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:49:50AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2022-Jul-23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> By the way, it seems that 83011ce also broke the case of "REINDEX > >> DATABASE CONCURRENTLY", where the parser missed the addition of a > >> DefElem for "concurrently" in this case. > > > > Wow. > > For this one, we have a gap in the test, actually. It seems to me > that we'd better make sure that the OID of the indexes rebuilt > concurrently is changed. There is a REINDEX DATABASE CONCURRENTLY > already in the TAP tests, and the only thing that would be needed for > the job is an extra query that compares the OID saved before the > reindex with the one in the catalogs after the fact.. Agreed. I think you already have the query for that elsewhere in the test, so it's just a matter of copying it from there. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "No tengo por qué estar de acuerdo con lo que pienso" (Carlos Caszeli)
