From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2013-03-06 12:09:43 |
Message-ID: | 20130306120943.GM13803@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-03-06 20:59:37 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> OK. Patches updated... Please see attached.
> With all the work done on those patches, I suppose this is close to being
> something clean...
Yes, its looking good. There are loads of improvements possible but
those can very well be made incrementally.
> > I have the feeling we are talking past each other. Unless I miss
> > something *there is no* WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks between phase 2 and
> > 3. But one WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks for all would be totally
> > sufficient.
> >
> OK, sorry for the confusion. I added a call to WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks
> also before phase 3.
> Honestly, I am still not very comfortable with the fact that the ShareLock
> wait on parent relation is done outside each index transaction for build
> and validation... Changed as requested though...
Could you detail your concerns a bit? I tried to think it through
multiple times now and I still can't see a problem. The lock only
ensures that nobody has the relation open with the old index definition
in mind...
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-03-06 12:19:57 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-03-06 11:59:37 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |