From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
Date: | 2017-03-02 06:18:08 |
Message-ID: | 20170302061808.nfuptpli3lrlc5l7@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-03-01 19:25:23 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/28/17 11:21 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> > The only downside I can see to this approach is that we no logner will
> > able to reindex catalog tables concurrently, but in return it should be
> > easier to confirm that this approach can be made work.
>
> Another downside is any stored regclass fields will become invalid.
> Admittedly that's a pretty unusual use case, but it'd be nice if there was
> at least a way to let users fix things during the rename phase (perhaps via
> an event trigger).
I'm fairly confident that we don't want to invoke event triggers inside
the CIC code... I'm also fairly confident that between index oids
stored somewhere being invalidated - what'd be a realistic use case of
that - and not having reindex concurrently, just about everyone will
choose the former.
Regards,
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-02 06:19:30 | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
Previous Message | Josh Soref | 2017-03-02 06:17:36 | Re: Possible spelling fixes |