Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs
Date: 2008-12-18 00:23:16
Message-ID: 20081218002316.GM4453@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 18:01 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > We don't yet have a mechanism for an
> > > index AM to say "damn, this index is screwed up, don't use it".
> >
> > mark pg_index.indisvalid and/or pg_index.indisready to false in the
> > hot standby node?
>
> We can't edit the database until recovery is over, so that doesn't help
> us while in recovery mode. So not an option.

Maybe we should add a WAL record that's the physical representation for
"mark this index invalid", and have any transaction that modifies a hash
index write that to WAL. It should be simple code to write, because
the underlying replay is based on a regular heap update.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-12-18 00:55:58 Re: Coding TODO for 8.4: Synch Rep
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2008-12-18 00:11:16 Re: Summary: changes needed in function defaults behavior