Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: 2014-11-14 15:02:08
Message-ID: 20141114150208.GC11733@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-11-14 02:04:00 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/13/14, 3:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Having been responsible for a site where downtime was a 6 figure
> dollar amount per hour, I've spent a LOT of time worrying about lock
> problems. The really big issue here isn't grabbing an exclusive lock;
> it's grabbing one at some random time when no one is there to actively
> monitor what's happening. (If you can't handle *any* exclusive locks,
> that also means you can never do an ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN either.)

> With that in mind, would it be possible to set this up so that the
> time-consuming process of building the new index file happens first,
> and then (optionally) some sort of DBA action is required to actually
> do the relfilenode swap? I realize that's not the most elegant
> solution, but it's WAY better than this feature not hitting 9.5 and
> people having to hand-code a solution.

I don't think having a multi step version of the feature and it not
making into 9.5 are synonymous. And I really don't want to make it even
more complex before we have the basic version in.

I think a split like your:

> Possible syntax:
> REINDEX CONCURRENTLY -- Does what current patch does
> REINDEX CONCURRENT BUILD -- Builds new files
> REINDEX CONCURRENT SWAP -- Swaps new files in

could make sense, but it's really an additional feature ontop.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2014-11-14 15:54:30 Re: Re: Segmentation fault in pg_dumpall from master down to 9.1 and other bug introduced by RLS
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-11-14 14:54:39 Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE output weird for Top-N Sort