Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb
Date: 2019-07-05 16:22:19
Message-ID: 2b1504ac-3d6c-11ec-e1ce-3daf132b3d37@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-07-02 10:45, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> It just seemed wrong to me to allow a partial processing for something
> that's aimed to prevent corruption. I'd think that if users are
> knowledgeable enough to only reindex a subset of indexes/tables in
> such cases, they can also discard indexes that don't get affected by a
> collation lib upgrade. I'm not strongly opposed to supporting if
> though, as there indeed can be valid use cases.

We are moving in this direction. Thomas Munro has proposed an approach
for tracking collation versions on a per-object level rather than
per-database. So then we'd need a way to reindex not those indexes
affected by collation but only those affected by collation and not yet
fixed.

One could also imagine a behavior where not-yet-fixed indexes are simply
ignored by the planner. So the gradual upgrading approach that Tomas
described is absolutely a possibility.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2019-07-05 16:32:04 SHOW CREATE
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-07-05 16:16:03 Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb