pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:39:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20141112213912.GH13473@awork2.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZ=0NMfMVjemYjO0zWFi8PS3OMZCEsqimcgc34U8UKQeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB7nPqSTFkuc7dZxCDX4HOTU63YXHRroNv2aoUzyD-Zz_8Z_Zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52CF45E8.6090208@nasby.net>
	<CAB7nPqTZfx20Ra2Wf4Gm0a=NqF4q2aC8Q6OS8vKN6fhnD=cUxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB7nPqRkwKFgn4BFUybqU-Oo-=Gcbq0K-8H93Gr6fX-GGRPDXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140827064120.GZ21544@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<CAB7nPqSdSMeQMCvtt9P+ndfao5ALpVPDEMmaBPVjNiifLzb=3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB7nPqSyZhdc-gvwm3KyueoceFJSX5ypQAx_rsJ2DWr5nHtixA@mail.gmail.com>
	<545B8AD2.8030203@gmx.net>
	<CA+TgmoZtd=sa8LD0tnWgRDzx-Zzt_g_FnPf9jtj61z_rbuse6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZ=0NMfMVjemYjO0zWFi8PS3OMZCEsqimcgc34U8UKQeg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 2014-11-12 16:11:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> If REINDEX cannot work without an exclusive lock, we should invent some
> >> other qualifier, like WITH FEWER LOCKS.
> >
> > What he said.

I'm unconvinced. A *short* exclusive lock (just to update two pg_class
row), still gives most of the benefits of CONCURRENTLY. Also, I do think
we can get rid of that period in the not too far away future.

> But more to the point .... why, precisely, can't this work without an
> AccessExclusiveLock?  And can't we fix that instead of setting for
> something clearly inferior?

It's nontrivial to fix, but I think we can fix it at some point. I just
think we should get the *major* part of the feature before investing
lots of time making it even better. There's *very* frequent questions
about having this. And people do really dangerous stuff (like manually
updating pg_class.relfilenode and such) to cope.

The problem is that it's very hard to avoid the wrong index's
relfilenode being used when swapping the relfilenodes between two
indexes.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (170+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20141112213912.GH13473@awork2.anarazel.de>
Permalink:  ../20141112213912.GH13473@awork2.anarazel.de/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20141112213912.GH13473@awork2.anarazel.de

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: andres@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, peter_e@gmx.net, michael.paquier@gmail.com, jim@nasby.net
  Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
  In-Reply-To: <20141112213912.GH13473@awork2.anarazel.de>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox