| From: | Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX blocks virtually any queries but some prepared queries. |
| Date: | 2022-04-07 13:43:57 |
| Message-ID: | c85da18d-7a86-6b2c-91cc-edb9ec90ce88@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/7/22 14:40, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:37:57PM +0200, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
>> Maybe something along this line? (patch attached)
> Some language fixes.
Thank you Justin! I applied your fixes in the v2 patch (attached).
> I didn't verify the behavior, but +1 to document the practical consequences.
> I guess this is why someone invented REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
>
Indeed ;) That being said, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY could give you an
invalid index, so sometimes you may be tempted to go for a simpler
REINDEX, especially if you believe that the SELECTs won't be blocked.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Doc-Elaborate-locking-considerations-for-REINDEX_v2.patch | text/x-patch | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-07 13:45:17 | Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only? |
| Previous Message | Blake, Geoff | 2022-04-07 13:41:23 | Re: Add spin_delay() implementation for Arm in s_lock.h |