| 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: | 2012-01-17 17:06:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1326819964.2820.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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?
Well, ready = false and valid = true doesn't make any sense. There is
only just-created -> ready -> valid. We might as well convert that to a
single "char" column, as you had indicated in your earlier email. But
that's independent of the proposed patch.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-17 17:07:41 | Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-01-17 16:59:57 | how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE |