| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-06-17 15:03:35 |
| Message-ID: | 51BF2547.5050803@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/17/13 9:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Without getting rid of the AccessExclusiveLock, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is
>> not really concurrent, at least not concurrent to the standard set by
>> CREATE and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
>
> Well, it still does the main body of work in a concurrent fashion, so I
> still don't see how that argument holds that much water.
The reason we added DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY is so that you don't get
stuck in a lock situation like
long-running-transaction <- DROP INDEX <- everything else
If we accepted REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as currently proposed, then it would
have the same problem.
I don't think we should accept a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY implementation
that is worse in that respect than a manual CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY +
DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY combination.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-06-17 15:14:45 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-06-17 14:41:15 | matview incremental maintenance |