Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: 2014-11-11 04:52:22
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRDqTOJhegHU3_UN7b5saLBOJGRUqZs8-WkXB6eitqScQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Updated patch is attached.
>> Please find attached an updated patch with the following things changed:
>> - Addition of tab completion in psql for all new commands
>> - Addition of a call to WaitForLockers in index_concurrent_swap to
>> ensure that there are no running transactions on the parent table
>> running before exclusive locks are taken on the index and its
>> concurrent entry. Previous patch versions created deadlocks because of
>> that, issue spotted by the isolation tests integrated in the patch.
>> - Isolation tests for reindex concurrently are re-enabled by default.
>> Regards,
>
>
> It looks like this needs another rebase, I get failures on index.c, toasting.c, indexcmds.c, and index.h

Indeed. There are some conflicts created by the recent modification of
index_create. Here is a rebased patch.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
20141110_reindex_concurrently_3_v4.patch application/x-patch 87.4 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2014-11-11 04:54:10 Re: using custom scan nodes to prototype parallel sequential scan
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2014-11-11 04:51:26 Re: Race in "tablespace" test on Windows