| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-12-07 13:33:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+4StaXH-kHBG9jJaZ3akk2ss4zAWMHyqjzR2u2P1rm+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There are still two things that are missing in this patch, but I would like
> to have more feedback before moving forward:
> - REINDEX CONCURRENTLY needs tests in src/test/isolation
Yes, it needs those
> - 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.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-12-07 13:58:04 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |
| Previous Message | Amit kapila | 2012-12-07 13:06:23 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |