Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Date: 2012-02-01 17:18:59
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+c0ZZ9PB+fNh+MJT+4+_QUJb9xMk_woZ2OzbzjBM0s1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I improved the grammar issues in the attached version of the patch -
> the syntax is now simpler and more consistent, IF EXISTS now works,
> and RESTRICT is accepted (without changing the behavior) while CASCADE
> fails with a nicer error message.  I also fixed a bug in
> RangeVarCallbackForDropRelation.

Plus tests as well. Many thanks.

I fixed the main bug you observed and your test case now works
perfectly. I used pgbench to continuously drop/create an index, so a
little more than manual testing.

v5 Attached.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
drop_index_concurrently.v5.patch text/x-diff 27.6 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-02-01 17:23:45 Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-02-01 16:28:50 Re: JSON for PG 9.2