|From:||Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Sorry for the lateness of this...
On 11/14/13, 8:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + /*
> + * Phase 4 of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
> + *
> + * Now that the concurrent indexes have been validated could be used,
> + * we need to swap each concurrent index with its corresponding old index.
> + * Note that the concurrent index used for swaping is not marked as valid
> + * because we need to keep the former index and the concurrent index with
> + * a different valid status to avoid an implosion in the number of indexes
> + * a parent relation could have if this operation fails multiple times in
> + * a row due to a reason or another. Note that we already know thanks to
> + * validation step that
> + */
Was there supposed to be more to that comment?
In the loop right below it...
+ /* Swap the indexes and mark the indexes that have the old data as invalid */
+ forboth(lc, indexIds, lc2, concurrentIndexIds)
Do we actually need to invalidate the cache on each case? Is it because we're grabbing a new transaction each time through?
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2014-01-10 01:16:50||Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes|
|Previous Message||Marko Tiikkaja||2014-01-10 00:36:33||Re: array_length(anyarray)|