Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>
To: "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2012-10-18 12:58:43
Message-ID: 20121018125843.224550@gmx.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday, October 18, 2012 06:12:02 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:

>> I'm having trouble seeing a way to make this work without
>> rearranging the code for concurrent drop to get to a state where
>> it has set indisvalid = false, made that visible to all processes,
>> and ensured that all scans of the index are complete -- while
>> indisready is still true. That is the point where
>> TransferPredicateLocksToHeapRelation() could be safely called.
>> Then we would need to set indisready = false, make that visible to
>> all processes, and ensure that all access to the index is
>> complete. I can't see where it works to set both flags at the same
>> time.

> In a nearby bug I had to restructure the code that in a way thats
> similar to this anyway, so that seems fine. Maybe you can fix the
> bug ontop of the two attached patches?

Perfect; these two patches provide a spot in the code which is
exactly right for handling the predicate lock adjustments. Attached
is a patch which applies on top of the two you sent.

Thanks!

-Kevin

Attachment Content-Type Size
drop-index-concurrently-predicate-locks-v3.patch text/x-patch 2.5 KB

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-10-18 13:35:42 Re: Deprecations in authentication
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-10-18 12:19:26 Re: Re: DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY is not really concurrency safe & leaves around undroppable indexes