Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2013-01-28 11:50:21
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRB=DTVocJynZNuktsoNKSOSDz1Oo8BJ+5NPANL=eYEAQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> > Another argument that would be enough for a rejection of this patch by a
> > committer is the problem of invalid toast indexes that cannot be removed
> up
> > cleanly by an operator. As long as there is not a clean solution for
> > that...
>
> I think that part is relatively easy to fix, I wouldn't worry too
> much.
> The more complex part is how to get tuptoaster.c to update the
> concurrently created index. That's what I worry about. Its not going
> through the normal executor paths but manually updates the toast
> index - which means it won't update the indisready && !indisvalid
> index...
>
I included in the patch some stuff to update the reltoastidxid of the
parent relation of the toast index. Have a look at
index.c:index_concurrent_swap. The particular case I had in mind was if
there is a failure of the server during the concurrent reindex of a toast
index. When server restarts, the toast relation will have an invalid index
and this cannot be dropped by an operator via SQL.
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-01-28 11:59:41 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-01-28 11:44:14 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY