Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ...

Where are we on this?  Does the code path now make sense, at least?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:45 AM
> > To: Hiroshi Inoue
> > Cc: 'Tom Lane'; pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/backend
> > catalog/index.c comma ...
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > > > > Why could you determine it ? Is PostgreSQL your system ?
> > > >
> > > > Well, if you prefer, we can have a discussion and vote about
> > > > it on pghackers.
> > >
> > > Oh discussion *first* is good but You committed *first*.
> > > So isn't it reasonable to revert your change *first* ?
> > >
> > > This is the second time you disable the on-line reindex
> > > functionality for system tables. Why must I explain the
> > > same thing many times ?
> >
> > Actually, as a comment here, since I *think* I understand where Tom is
> > coming from ... and since I've either missed it, or it hasn't been
> > answered yet ... why was the original patch incomplete in
> > only addressing
> > 1 of 3 REINDEX conditions?  Is there a reason why that one condition
> > is/was safe to do it with, but not the other 2?
>
> Sorry to trouble you.
>
> In the first place, REINDEX is neither an SQL standard command nor
> a preferable one.
>
> When I introduced REINDEX command before 7.0, it was not
> transaction-safe and only allowed to call under standalone mode
> essentially.
>
> Before 7.1, the introduction of pg_class.relfilenode gave us a possibilty
> to make REINDEX command transaction-safe and I tried to make
> REINDEX available under postmaster and the result was
>    1.All user indexes/tables could be REINDEXed under postmaster
>    2.System tables except shared or nailed ones could be REINDEXed
>      under postmaster.
>
> Note that we couldn't reindex all system tables under postmaster.
> It's the main reason why I didn't implement REINDEX DATABASE
> under postmaster. As for REINDEX, I have
>
> Tue Nov 20 02:46:13 2001 UTC (22 months ago)  Tom committed
> the following change which disables the functionality to reindex
> system tables under postmaster.
>      Some minor tweaks of REINDEX processing: grab exclusive
>      lock a little earlier, make error checks more uniform.
>
> The above change was the first time he disables the functionality.
> I noticed the change, complained to him and
> Thu Feb 7 00:27:30 2002 UTC (19 months, 1 week ago) I
>    Removed a check for REINDEX TABLE.
>
> And this is the second time he disables the functionality without
> any notification to me. Honestly I don't understand why I have to
> explain this kind of thing only so as to revert the change.
>
> regards,
> Hiroshi Inoue
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073