On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Andres Freund
<andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2012-12-07 12:01:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
explicitly opens/modifies the one index it needs and updates it.
> 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.
The whole swapping issue isn't solved satisfyingly as whole yet :(.
If we just swap the index relfilenodes in the pg_index entries itself,
we wouldn't need to modify the main table's pg_class at all.
I think you are mistaking here, relfilenode is a column of pg_class and not pg_index.
So whatever the method used for swapping: relfilenode switch or relname switch, you need to modify the pg_class entry of the old and new indexes.
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com