From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2012-12-07 17:01:52 |
Message-ID: | 25447.1354899712@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> - There is still a problem with toast indexes. If the concurrent reindex of
>> a toast index fails for a reason or another, pg_relation will finish with
>> invalid toast index entries. I am still wondering about how to clean up
>> that. Any ideas?
> Build another toast index, rather than reindexing the existing one,
> then just use the new oid.
Um, I don't think you can swap in a new toast index OID without taking
exclusive lock on the parent table at some point.
One sticking point is the need to update pg_class.reltoastidxid. I
wonder how badly we need that field though --- could we get rid of it
and treat toast-table indexes just the same as normal ones? (Whatever
code is looking at the field could perhaps instead rely on
RelationGetIndexList.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-07 17:19:31 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-12-07 16:57:34 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |