Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
Date: 2019-09-29 15:27:09
Message-ID: 20190929152709.GA25027@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Sep-28, James Coleman wrote:

> I believe caveats like this are worth calling out rather than
> expecting users to have to understand the implementation details an
> work out the implications on their own.

I agree.

> I read Alvaro as referring to the fact that the docs already call out
> the following:
>
> > Regular index builds permit other regular index builds on the same
> > table to occur simultaneously, but only one concurrent index build
> > can occur on a table at a time.

Yeah, that's what I was understanding.

BTW I think there's an approach that could alleviate part of this
problem, at least some of the time: whenever CIC runs for an index
that's not on expression and not partial, we could set the
PROC_IN_VACUUM flag. That would cause it to get ignored by other
processes for snapshot purposes (including CIC itself), as well as by
vacuum. I need to take some time to research the safety of this, but
intuitively it seems safe.

Even further, I think we could also do it for regular CREATE INDEX
(under the same conditions) provided that it's not run in a transaction
block. But that requires even more research/proof.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2019-09-29 15:49:03 recovery_min_apply_delay in archive recovery causes assertion failure in latch
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2019-09-29 15:12:31 Re: Connections hang indefinitely while taking a gin index's LWLock buffer_content lock(PG10.7)