Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements

From: Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements
Date: 2023-12-20 16:53:27
Message-ID: CANtu0ogT2Qn7-q_jK6+DqBQvFoTt69eQJDKxJARXV9pdWjd0Gg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Yes, good catch.
> Assuming we have somehow prevented vac_truncate_clog from occurring
> during CIC, we can leave frozen and potentially frozen
> (xmin<frozenXID) for the second phase.

Just realized that we can leave this for the first stage to improve efficiency.
Since the ID is locked, anything that can be frozen will be visible in
the first stage.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2023-12-20 17:11:37 Re: Detecting some cases of missing backup_label
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-12-20 16:36:28 Re: ci: Build standalone INSTALL file