|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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).
|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"|