From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: reindex concurrently and two toast indexes |
Date: | 2020-03-06 01:38:44 |
Message-ID: | 20200306013844.GE52814@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 05:57:07PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I agree that the approach wasn't quite robust. I'll try to look at adding a
> new command for isolationtester, but that's probably not something we want to
> put in pg13?
Yes, that's too late.
> Note that while looking at it, I noticed another bug in RIC:
>
> [...]
>
> # reindex table concurrently t1;
> WARNING: 0A000: cannot reindex invalid index "public.t1_val_idx_ccold" concurrently, skipping
> LOCATION: ReindexRelationConcurrently, indexcmds.c:2821
> WARNING: XX002: cannot reindex invalid index "pg_toast.pg_toast_16395_index_ccold" concurrently, skipping
> LOCATION: ReindexRelationConcurrently, indexcmds.c:2867
> REINDEX
> # reindex index concurrently t1_val_idx_ccold;
> REINDEX
>
> That case is also fixed in this patch.
This choice is intentional. The idea about bypassing invalid indexes
for table-level REINDEX is that this would lead to a bloat in the
number of relations to handling if multiple runs are failing, leading
to more and more invalid indexes to handle each time. Allowing a
single invalid non-toast index to be reindexed with CONCURRENTLY can
be helpful in some cases, like for example a CIC for a unique index
that failed and was invalid, where the relation already defined can be
reused.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-06 01:40:04 | Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-03-06 01:29:46 | Re: Crash by targetted recovery |