| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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: | 2013-09-26 20:46:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20130926204627.GA26663@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-27 05:41:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In this case, doing a call to WaitForOldSnapshots after the swap phase
> is enough. It was included in past versions of the patch but removed
> in the last 2 versions.
I don't think it is. I really, really suggest following the protocol
used by index_drop down to the t and document every *slight* deviation
carefully.
We've had more than one bug in index_drop's concurrent feature.
> Btw, taking the problem from another viewpoint... This feature has now
> 3 patches, the 2 first patches doing only code refactoring. Could it
> be possible to have a look at those ones first? Straight-forward
> things should go first, simplifying the core feature evaluation.
I haven't looked at them in detail, but they looked good on a quick
pass. I'll make another pass, but that won't be before, say, Tuesday.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-09-26 20:52:19 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-09-26 20:41:26 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |