Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Date: 2012-01-17 17:06:04
Message-ID: 1326819964.2820.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with this, because
> >> IIUC when a session sees indisvalid = false, it is supposed to avoid
> >> using the index for queries but still make new index entries when a
> >> write operation happens - but to drop an index, I think you'd need to
> >> get into a state where no one was using the index for anything at all.
> >
> > ISTM that one would need to set indisready to false instead.
> 
> Maybe we should set both to false?

Well, ready = false and valid = true doesn't make any sense.  There is
only just-created -> ready -> valid.  We might as well convert that to a
single "char" column, as you had indicated in your earlier email.  But
that's independent of the proposed patch.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-01-17 17:07:41
Subject: Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-01-17 16:59:57
Subject: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group