From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:14:47 +0100
Message-ID: <20201103181447.54ctwnfdt5wztbqn@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200820060929.GB3730@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAAaqYe_tq_Mtd9tdeGDsgQh+wMvouithAmcOXvCbLaH2PPGHvA@mail.gmail.com>
<20200819181646.GA1559@alvherre.pgsql>
<20200820060929.GB3730@paquier.xyz>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:11:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:16:46PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I did not set the flag in REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, but as I understand it
> > can be done too, since in essence it's the same thing as a CIC from a
> > snapshot management point of view.
>
> Yes, I see no problems for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as well as long as
> there are no predicates and expressions involved. The transactions
> that should be patched are all started in ReindexRelationConcurrently.
> The transaction of index_concurrently_swap() cannot set up that
> though. Only thing to be careful is to make sure that safe_flag is
> correct depending on the list of indexes worked on.
Hi,
After looking through the thread and reading the patch it seems good,
and there are only few minor questions:
* Doing the same for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, which does make sense. In
fact it's already mentioned in the commentaries as done, which a bit
confusing.
* Naming, to be more precise what suggested Michael:
> Could we consider renaming vacuumFlags? With more flags associated to
> a PGPROC entry that are not related to vacuum, the current naming
> makes things confusing. Something like statusFlags could fit better
> in the picture?
which sounds reasonable, and similar one about flag name
PROC_IN_SAFE_CIC - if it covers both CREATE INDEX/REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
maybe just PROC_IN_SAFE_IC?
Any plans about those questions? I can imagine that are the only missing
parts.
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: 9erthalion6@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, jtc331@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait
In-Reply-To: <20201103181447.54ctwnfdt5wztbqn@localhost>
* 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