Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX (with patch)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX (with patch) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaQcd2qjWfhiH+b-u=78+SePRePxLCEzK7mHhpwyAP82w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX (Shayon Mukherjee <shayonj@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX (with patch)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 9:59 AM Shayon Mukherjee <shayonj@gmail.com> wrote: > My take away from whether or not an in-place update is needed on pg_index [1] > > - It’s unclear to me why it’s needed. > - I understand the xmin would get incremented when using CatalogTupleUpdate to update indisenabled. > - However, I haven’t been able to replicate any odd behavior locally or CI. > - FWIW - REINDEX CONCURRENTLY (via index_swap), index_constraint_create and few other places perform CatalogTupleUpdateto update the relevant attributes as well. > > Based on the above summary and after my testing I would like to propose a v3 of the patch. The only difference betweenthis and v1 [2] is that the update of pg_index row happens via CatalogTupleUpdate. > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180618215635.m5vrnxdxhxytvmcm@alap3.anarazel.de > [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/EF2313B8-A017-4869-9B7F-A24EDD8795DE%40gmail.com In-place updates are generally bad news, so I think this patch shouldn't use them. However, someone will need to investigate whether that breaks the indcheckxmin thing that Andres mentions in your [1], and if it does, figure out what to do about it. Creating a test case to show the breakage would probably be a good first step, to frame the discussion. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: