Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> - There is still a problem with toast indexes. If the concurrent reindex of
>> a toast index fails for a reason or another, pg_relation will finish with
>> invalid toast index entries. I am still wondering about how to clean up
>> that. Any ideas?
> Build another toast index, rather than reindexing the existing one,
> then just use the new oid.
Um, I don't think you can swap in a new toast index OID without taking
exclusive lock on the parent table at some point.
One sticking point is the need to update pg_class.reltoastidxid. I
wonder how badly we need that field though --- could we get rid of it
and treat toast-table indexes just the same as normal ones? (Whatever
code is looking at the field could perhaps instead rely on
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2012-12-07 17:19:31|
|Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-12-07 16:57:34|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes|