On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 18:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 11:26:44AM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > The variable is used in else scope hence I moved it there. But yes its
> > removed completely for this scope.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch. It does its job by having on
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 11:26:44AM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> The variable is used in else scope hence I moved it there. But yes its
> removed completely for this scope.
Thanks for updating the patch. It does its job by having one separate
message for the concurrent and the non-concurrent cas
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:27 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 04:53:48PM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > Please check if the attached patch addresses and satisfies all the points
> > discussed so far in this thread.
>
> It looks to be so, please see below for some comments.
>
>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 04:53:48PM -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Please check if the attached patch addresses and satisfies all the points
> discussed so far in this thread.
It looks to be so, please see below for some comments.
> +{
> result = ReindexRelationConcurrently(heapOid, o
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:05 PM David Rowley
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 01:23, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> > I think we will need to separate out the NOTICE message for concurrent
> and regular case.
> >
> > For example this doesn't sound correct
> > WARNING: cannot reindex exclusion constrai
On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 01:23, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> I think we will need to separate out the NOTICE message for concurrent and
> regular case.
>
> For example this doesn't sound correct
> WARNING: cannot reindex exclusion constraint index "public.circles_c_excl"
> concurrently, skipping
> NOT
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 6:43 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> As you mention for reindex_relation() no indexes <=> nothing to do,
> still let's not rely on that. Instead of making the error message
> specific to concurrent operations, I would suggest to change it to
> "table foo has no indexes to rei
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:42:59PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Also, I think people probably will care more about the fact that
> nothing was done for that table rather than if the table happens to
> have no indexes. For the non-concurrently case, that just happened to
> be the same thing.
This i
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 12:06, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> Seems might be just emit the NOTICE "table xxx has no index", if really no
> index for concurrent and non-concurrent case, make it consistent, less
> confusing and leave it there. Attaching the patch to just do that. Thoughts?
Would it not b
CREATE TABLE circles (c circle, EXCLUDE USING gist (c WITH &&));
REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY circles;
WARNING: cannot reindex exclusion constraint index "public.circles_c_excl"
concurrently, skipping
NOTICE: table "circles" has no indexes
REINDEX
The message "table has no indexes" is confusing,
10 matches
Mail list logo
