Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index

From: Ilya Gladyshev <ilya(dot)v(dot)gladyshev(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 李杰(慎追) <adger(dot)lj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index
Date: 2022-12-09 13:53:10
Message-ID: 05c08a663f357eecae09942b3939e560bcb0fc18.camel@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2022-12-04 at 13:09 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> This beavior is fixed.  I re-factored and re-implented to use
> DefineIndex() for building indexes concurrently rather than
> reindexing.
> That makes the patch smaller, actually, and has the added benefit of
> splitting off the "Concurrently" part of DefineIndex() into a
> separate
> function.

Nice, I think it turned out pretty concise. I played around with the
patch quite a bit, didn't find any major problems, the only minor thing
that I can note is that we should skip the top parent index itself in
the loop not to increment the pg_stat counter, something like this:

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
index cfab45b999..9049540b5b 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
@@ -1515,6 +1515,9 @@ DefineIndex(Oid relationId,
Oid indrelid =
lfirst_oid(lc);
Oid tabrelid =
IndexGetRelation(indrelid, false);

+ if (indrelid == indexRelationId)
+ continue;
+
if
(RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(get_rel_relkind(indrelid)) &&
!get_index_isvalid(indrelid))
{
>
> BTW, it causes the patch to fail to apply in cfbot when you send an
> additional (002) supplementary patch without including the original
> (001) patch.  You can name it *.txt to avoid the issue.
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Cfbot#Which_attachments_are_considered_to_be_patches.3F
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
My bad, didn't know about this, thanks for the link.

On a side note, I noticed that reindex behaviour is strange on
partitioned tables, it doesn't mark partitioned tables as valid after
reindexing children, as I could understand from the code and mailing
lists, this is the intended behaviour, but I can't quite understand the
rationale for it, do you know why it is done this way?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message adherent postgres 2022-12-09 13:54:23 Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15
Previous Message Pavel Borisov 2022-12-09 13:46:12 Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15