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: 2012-01-16 19:06:18
Message-ID: 1326740778.29466.10.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-01-16 19:17:42 Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-01-16 18:52:35 Re: pg_basebackup option for handling symlinks