Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Date: 2011-12-31 13:26:25
Message-ID: CA+U5nMLQjFQvgyDVZ7wH7EcGM7bZRoLngJSp7aOFXko0-7Ab9g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On ons, 2011-08-24 at 11:24 -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> I was poking around at tablecmds and index.c and wonder if a similar
>> two-pass approach as used by CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY can be used to
>> create a DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY, and if there would be any interest
>> in accepting such a patch.
>
> Hmm, it seems I just independently came up with this same concept.  My
> problem is that if a CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails, you need an
> exclusive lock on the table just to clean that up.  If the table is
> under constant load, you can't easily do that.  So a two-pass DROP INDEX
> CONCURRENTLY might have been helpful for me.

Here's a patch for this. Please review.

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
drop_index_concurrently.v1.patch text/x-patch 21.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-12-31 13:34:03 pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-12-30 22:20:20 Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?