Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ...

Where are we on this? Does the code path now make sense, at least?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:45 AM
> > To: Hiroshi Inoue
> > Cc: 'Tom Lane'; pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/backend
> > catalog/index.c comma ...
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > > > > Why could you determine it ? Is PostgreSQL your system ?
> > > >
> > > > Well, if you prefer, we can have a discussion and vote about
> > > > it on pghackers.
> > >
> > > Oh discussion *first* is good but You committed *first*.
> > > So isn't it reasonable to revert your change *first* ?
> > >
> > > This is the second time you disable the on-line reindex
> > > functionality for system tables. Why must I explain the
> > > same thing many times ?
> >
> > Actually, as a comment here, since I *think* I understand where Tom is
> > coming from ... and since I've either missed it, or it hasn't been
> > answered yet ... why was the original patch incomplete in
> > only addressing
> > 1 of 3 REINDEX conditions? Is there a reason why that one condition
> > is/was safe to do it with, but not the other 2?
>
> Sorry to trouble you.
>
> In the first place, REINDEX is neither an SQL standard command nor
> a preferable one.
>
> When I introduced REINDEX command before 7.0, it was not
> transaction-safe and only allowed to call under standalone mode
> essentially.
>
> Before 7.1, the introduction of pg_class.relfilenode gave us a possibilty
> to make REINDEX command transaction-safe and I tried to make
> REINDEX available under postmaster and the result was
> 1.All user indexes/tables could be REINDEXed under postmaster
> 2.System tables except shared or nailed ones could be REINDEXed
> under postmaster.
>
> Note that we couldn't reindex all system tables under postmaster.
> It's the main reason why I didn't implement REINDEX DATABASE
> under postmaster. As for REINDEX, I have
>
> Tue Nov 20 02:46:13 2001 UTC (22 months ago) Tom committed
> the following change which disables the functionality to reindex
> system tables under postmaster.
> Some minor tweaks of REINDEX processing: grab exclusive
> lock a little earlier, make error checks more uniform.
>
> The above change was the first time he disables the functionality.
> I noticed the change, complained to him and
> Thu Feb 7 00:27:30 2002 UTC (19 months, 1 week ago) I
> Removed a check for REINDEX TABLE.
>
> And this is the second time he disables the functionality without
> any notification to me. Honestly I don't understand why I have to
> explain this kind of thing only so as to revert the change.
>
> regards,
> Hiroshi Inoue
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073