As introduced by
f9900df5f94, a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY job done for an
index with predicates or expressions would set PROC_IN_SAFE_IC in its
MyProc->statusFlags, causing it to be ignored by other concurrent
operations.
Such concurrent index rebuilds should never be ignored, as a predicate
or an expression could call a user-defined function that accesses a
different table than the table where the index is rebuilt.
A test that uses injection points is added, backpatched down to 17.
Michail has proposed a different test, but I have added something
simpler with more coverage.
Oversight in
f9900df5f949.
Author: Michail Nikolaev
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANtu0oj9A3kZVduFTG0vrmGnKB+DCHgEpzOp0qAyOgmks84j0w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14
save_nestlevel = NewGUCNestLevel();
/* determine safety of this index for set_indexsafe_procflags */
- idx->safe = (indexRel->rd_indexprs == NIL &&
- indexRel->rd_indpred == NIL);
+ idx->safe = (RelationGetIndexExpressions(indexRel) == NIL &&
+ RelationGetIndexPredicate(indexRel) == NIL);
idx->tableId = RelationGetRelid(heapRel);
idx->amId = indexRel->rd_rel->relam;