MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:45:49 +0300
From: Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier
 <michael@paquier.xyz>, =?UTF-8?Q?=E6=9D=8E=E6=9D=B0=28=E6=85=8E?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E8=BF=BD=29?= <adger.lj@alibaba-inc.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, =?UTF-8?Q?=E6=9B=BE=E6=96=87?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E6=97=8C=28=E4=B9=89=E4=BB=8E=29?= <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index
In-Reply-To: <20220628183309.GD28130@telsasoft.com>
References: <20201031063117.GF3080@telsasoft.com>
 <20201129202221.GA9477@telsasoft.com>
 <CAD21AoCHYE5=PU7kJGGUHZuYVrHTHqmpUxN+8-rLGYpdgPwJ9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210128143013.GC7450@telsasoft.com>
 <be8ff634-72c6-3fc7-9175-5a6b974af4a9@postgrespro.ru>
 <20210226182019.GU20769@telsasoft.com>
 <04657227cc37b6353cf0c72bedac70cc@postgrespro.ru>
 <20220628183309.GD28130@telsasoft.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <5f1d2d8f81dcd63f544af5ae61f881f9@postgrespro.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5f1d2d8f81dcd63f544af5ae61f881f9%40postgrespro.ru>
Precedence: bulk

Justin Pryzby писал 2022-06-28 21:33:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 06:07:08PM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
>> I've rebased patches and tried to fix issues I've seen. I've fixed 
>> reference
>> after table_close() in the first patch (can be seen while building 
>> with
>> CPPFLAGS='-DRELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE').
> 
> Thanks for finding that.
> 
> The patches other than 0001 are more experimental, and need someone to 
> check if
> it's even a good approach to use, so I kept them separate from the 
> essential
> patch.
> 
> Your latest 0005 patch (mark intermediate partitioned indexes as valid) 
> is
> probably fixing a bug in my SKIPVALID patch, right ?  I'm not sure 
> whether the
> SKIPVALID patch should be merged into 0001, and I've been awaiting 
> feedback on
> the main patch before handling progress reporting.

Hi. I think it's more about fixing ReindexPartitions-to-set-indisvalid 
patch, as
we also should mark intermediate indexes as valid when reindex succeeds.


> Sorry for not responding sooner.  The patch saw no activity for ~11 
> months so I
> wasn't prepared to pick it up in March, at least not without guidance 
> from a
> committer.
> 
> Would you want to take over this patch ?  I wrote it following 
> someone's
> question, but don't expect that I'd use the feature myself.  I can help 
> review
> it or try to clarify the organization of my existing patches (but still 
> haven't
> managed to work my way through your amendments to my patches).
> 

Yes, I'm glad to work on the patches, as this for us this is a very 
important feature.
-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional