Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 25447.1354899712@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - There is still a problem with toast indexes. If the concurrent reindex of
>> a toast index fails for a reason or another, pg_relation will finish with
>> invalid toast index entries. I am still wondering about how to clean up
>> that. Any ideas?
> Build another toast index, rather than reindexing the existing one,
> then just use the new oid.
Um, I don't think you can swap in a new toast index OID without taking
exclusive lock on the parent table at some point.
One sticking point is the need to update pg_class.reltoastidxid. I
wonder how badly we need that field though --- could we get rid of it
and treat toast-table indexes just the same as normal ones? (Whatever
code is looking at the field could perhaps instead rely on
RelationGetIndexList.)
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: