Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzk1w-0008WO-Ub for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:34:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzk1u-0002EU-C8 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:33:58 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzk1t-0002EN-LT for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:33:58 +0000 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.21]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kzk1n-0002fS-7m for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:33:55 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C9491A; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:33:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:33:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=hTFQpv9KzgGmeAzoPRd2+Ou8mAVZ+fJmLC9jEtX2Rp8=; b=TlbbiZTu Y5Ed29eeTD7IYMs/HbJtAdI9vJLS8jFrSl9AwXW5q+YMRfD+KPq8Rlb/6rHFP6U8 MTH2nAfJIdOMXnP/ybNUtoXOAm0KM4zTPpZGrSQQIUJ3ipN0XoCFDuzEgBQ4yYVq 36CulnbI7+8cxrNw8i4IluRSTFr5zvJ/BSuVsxRoMP5nUX9OemEOZAbDQk3EZCgm 4NM9W1WWxiIjfUb+av9Mhx9DbIKuA03kQXBKdSkp5PWXMQMoOwbDi9tguPGea1L2 q5w70Ad0t25aLUEOuvQedEYWJmit8z49Y8LenJvrPpPeWDzxGayHTUYlbyo5dl8s qPjga8x/M8KuTg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedukedrtdefgddutdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne gfrhhlucfvnfffucdlfeehmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkgggtugfgjggfsehtkeertddt redunecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhvrghrohcujfgvrhhrvghrrgcuoegrlhhvhhgvrhhrvgesrg hlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeufffhjeeiueeuffeg vddukeegledtveeivdeiueefieeivefgteehueefteehvdenucfkphepudeltddrleehrd duledrudejjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhr ohhmpegrlhhvhhgvrhhrvgesrghlvhhhrdhnohdqihhprdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (unknown [190.95.19.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B307524005B; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BC0CC2A0FC3; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:33:43 -0300 (-03) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:33:43 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: James Coleman Cc: Michael Paquier , David Johnston , PostgreSQL Developers , Andres Freund Subject: Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other Message-ID: <20210113173343.GA31409@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:58 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:51:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I looked into this again, and I didn't like what I had added to > > > maintenance.sgml at all. It seems out of place where I put it; and I > > > couldn't find any great spots. Going back to your original proposal, > > > what about something like this? It's just one more para in the "notes" > > > section in CREATE INDEX and REINDEX pages, without any additions to the > > > VACUUM pages. > > > > +1. > > I think one more para in the notes is good. But shouldn't we still > clarify the issue is specific to CONCURRENTLY? How is it specific to concurrent builds? What we're documenting here is the behavior of vacuum, and that one is identical in both regular builds and concurrent builds (since vacuum has to avoid removing rows from under either of them). The only reason concurrent builds are interesting is because they take longer. What was specific to concurrent builds was the fact that you can't have more than one at a time, and that one is what was added in 58ebe967f. > Also that it's not just the table being indexed seems fairly significant. This is true. So I propose Like any long-running transaction, REINDEX can affect which tuples can be removed by concurrent VACUUM on any table. -- Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W