Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Manuel Rigger <rigger(dot)manuel(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY unexpectedly fails
Date: 2020-01-21 02:43:03
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:59:13AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Except for the part with index_drop() where I would rather do the
> decision-making for the concurrent behavior in RemoveRelations()
> rather than index_drop() (as I did in v4), what you have here looks
> fine to me. Would you prefer wrapping up this stuff yourself or
> should I? This needs a backpatch down to 9.4 for the CIC/DIC part.

Same feeling after sleeping on it. I have worked more this morning on
this stuff and I am finishing with the attached, which is a gathering
of everything that has been discussed, and based on Heikki's v5:
- Changed the part for DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY to do the
decision-making in RemoveRelations() at the earliest stage possible.
- Removed the call to CheckTableNotInUse() in
ReindexRelationConcurrently(). Let's use a separate patch/thread for
- Found one typo in the docs of REINDEX.

If there are no objections, I would like to wrap that in the next day
or so (still need to do the work for the back-branches).

Attachment Content-Type Size
reindex-conc-temp-v6.patch text/x-diff 17.6 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-01-21 03:18:59 Re: Wrong hash table size calculation in Parallel Hash Join
Previous Message PG Bug reporting form 2020-01-20 22:33:52 BUG #16220: FTS queries slow for large table when using low "gin_fuzzy_search_limit"