| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>,Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>,Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>,PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2017-03-04 17:34:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1F13C8DA-D31E-4821-BA6F-0FA772AD6069@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On March 4, 2017 1:16:56 AM PST, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>Maybe. But it looks to me like this patch is going to have
>considerably more than its share of user-visible warts, and I'm not
>very excited about that. I feel like what we ought to be doing is
>keeping the index OID the same and changing the relfilenode to point
>to a newly-created one, and I attribute our failure to make that
>design work thus far to insufficiently aggressive hacking.
We literally spent years and a lot of emails waiting for that to happen. Users now hack up solutions like this in userspace, obviously a bad solution.
I agree that'd it be nicer not to have this, but not having the feature at all is a lot worse than this wart.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-03-04 17:39:28 | Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea) |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2017-03-04 16:22:57 | Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table |