From fbcf0871123b464fef7f957301dcc57377cde9c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Paquier Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 12:50:15 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] Fix more issues with dependency handling at swap phase of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY When canceling a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY operation after swapping is done, a drop of the parent table would leave behind old indexes. This is a consequence of 68ac9cf, which fixed the case of pg_depend bloat when repeating REINDEX CONCURRENTLY on the same relation. In order to take care of the problem without breaking the previous fix, this uses a different strategy, possible even with the exiting set of routines to handle dependency changes. The dependencies of/on the new index are additionally switched to the old one, allowing an old invalid index remaining around because of a cancellation or a failure to use the dependency links of the concurrently-created index. This ensures that dropping any objects the old invalid index depends on also drops the old index automatically. Reported-by: Julien Rouhaud Author: Michael Paquier Reviewed-by: Julien Rouhaud Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200227080735.l32fqcauy73lon7o@nol Backpatch-through: 12 --- src/backend/catalog/index.c | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/index.c b/src/backend/catalog/index.c index 1681f61727..7223679033 100644 --- a/src/backend/catalog/index.c +++ b/src/backend/catalog/index.c @@ -1675,12 +1675,13 @@ index_concurrently_swap(Oid newIndexId, Oid oldIndexId, const char *oldName) } /* - * Move all dependencies of and on the old index to the new one. First - * remove any dependencies that the new index may have to provide an - * initial clean state for the dependency switch, and then move all the - * dependencies from the old index to the new one. + * Swap all dependencies of and on the old index to the new one, and + * vice-versa. Note that a call to CommandCounterIncrement() would cause + * duplicate entries in pg_depend, so this should not be done. */ - deleteDependencyRecordsFor(RelationRelationId, newIndexId, false); + changeDependenciesOf(RelationRelationId, newIndexId, oldIndexId); + changeDependenciesOn(RelationRelationId, newIndexId, oldIndexId); + changeDependenciesOf(RelationRelationId, oldIndexId, newIndexId); changeDependenciesOn(RelationRelationId, oldIndexId, newIndexId);