From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:02:08 +0100
Message-ID: <20141114150208.GC11733@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5465B770.70604@BlueTreble.com>
References: <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>
<20141112213912.GH13473@awork2.anarazel.de>
<CA+TgmoZkJu-R58mBUVCJzFJvgeiQyJ2_1RfrZh6gy5LSzyCSag@mail.gmail.com>
<20141113003106.GJ13473@awork2.anarazel.de>
<5465215D.2060505@gmx.net>
<61E955E2-61D7-45E8-BC66-F021EA0CE3CE@2ndquadrant.com>
<5465B770.70604@BlueTreble.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2014-11-14 02:04:00 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/13/14, 3:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Having been responsible for a site where downtime was a 6 figure
> dollar amount per hour, I've spent a LOT of time worrying about lock
> problems. The really big issue here isn't grabbing an exclusive lock;
> it's grabbing one at some random time when no one is there to actively
> monitor what's happening. (If you can't handle *any* exclusive locks,
> that also means you can never do an ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN either.)
> With that in mind, would it be possible to set this up so that the
> time-consuming process of building the new index file happens first,
> and then (optionally) some sort of DBA action is required to actually
> do the relfilenode swap? I realize that's not the most elegant
> solution, but it's WAY better than this feature not hitting 9.5 and
> people having to hand-code a solution.
I don't think having a multi step version of the feature and it not
making into 9.5 are synonymous. And I really don't want to make it even
more complex before we have the basic version in.
I think a split like your:
> Possible syntax:
> REINDEX CONCURRENTLY -- Does what current patch does
> REINDEX CONCURRENT BUILD -- Builds new files
> REINDEX CONCURRENT SWAP -- Swaps new files in
could make sense, but it's really an additional feature ontop.
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
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, Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com, peter_e@gmx.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, jim@nasby.net
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
In-Reply-To: <20141114150208.GC11733@alap3.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