Hi,
Thanks for your comments.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:
> Sorry for the lateness of this...
>
> On 11/14/13, 8:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Phase 4 of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
>> + *
>> + * Now that the concurrent indexes have been validated could be
>> used,
>> + * we need to swap each concurrent index with its corresponding
>> old index.
>> + * Note that the concurrent index used for swaping is not marked
>> as valid
>> + * because we need to keep the former index and the concurrent
>> index with
>> + * a different valid status to avoid an implosion in the number of
>> indexes
>> + * a parent relation could have if this operation fails multiple
>> times in
>> + * a row due to a reason or another. Note that we already know
>> thanks to
>> + * validation step that
>> + */
>> +
>
>
> Was there supposed to be more to that comment?
Not really, it seems that this chunk came out after writing multiple
successive versions of this patch.
> In the loop right below it...
>
> + /* Swap the indexes and mark the indexes that have the old data as
> invalid */
> + forboth(lc, indexIds, lc2, concurrentIndexIds)
> ...
> + CacheInvalidateRelcacheByRelid(relOid);
>
> Do we actually need to invalidate the cache on each case? Is it because
> we're grabbing a new transaction each time through?
This is to force a refresh of the cached plans that have been using
the old index before transaction of step 4 began.
I have realigned this patch with latest head (d2458e3)... In case
someone is interested at some point...
Regards,
--
Michael