On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:05:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote:
>> > Thinking about this makes me wonder about why you decided to use a
>> > transaction per index in many of the steps rather than a transaction per
>> > step. Most steps should be quick. The only steps I think the makes sense to
>> > have a transaction per table are.
>>
>> I don't recall all the details to be honest :)
>>
>> > 1) When building indexes to avoid long running transactions.
>> > 2) When validating the new indexes, also to avoid long running transactions.
>> >
>> > But when swapping the indexes or when dropping the old indexes I do not see
>> > any reason to not just use one transaction per step since we do not even
>> > have to wait for any locks (other than WaitForLockers which we just want to
>> > call once anyway since all indexes relate to the same table).
>>
>> Perhaps, this really needs a careful lookup.
>>
>> By the way, as this patch is showing up for the first time in this
>> development cycle, would it be allowed in the last commit fest? That's
>> not a patch in the easy category, far from that, but it does not
>> present a new concept.
>
> FYI, the thread started on 2013-11-15.
I don't object to the addition of this patch in next CF as this
presents no new concept. Still per the complications this patch and
because it is a complicated patch I was wondering if people are fine
to include it in this last CF.
--
Michael