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

Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
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: 2012-01-16 19:46:21
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa5u8M4UAdBJCnUArEz74osJ2T2WDBdFpMZ1Rp3nuTQyQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-01-16 19:52:36
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-16 19:42:06
Subject: Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?

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