From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 01:13:46 +0100
Message-ID: <65552c19-32fb-7f4f-7b72-e92bbd6e1d61@proxel.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZXmKOCe5FezHF3n-KLk56Ea-N0DW6zYGGWDCz2jDXzNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB7nPqSTFkuc7dZxCDX4HOTU63YXHRroNv2aoUzyD-Zz_8Z_Zg@mail.gmail.com>
<a8e56251-bd3c-521e-7a2c-35d66b5f7f29@proxel.se>
<af867d20-1406-38c0-0a58-2cf1fce7240f@BlueTreble.com>
<20170302061808.nfuptpli3lrlc5l7@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CA+TgmoYDZ7ihGf-_uxabp8Sjk8-QLp0jVbO4TmzxQ65vw6jCvw@mail.gmail.com>
<1F13C8DA-D31E-4821-BA6F-0FA772AD6069@anarazel.de>
<CA+TgmoZXmKOCe5FezHF3n-KLk56Ea-N0DW6zYGGWDCz2jDXzNw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 03/05/2017 07:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I agree that'd it be nicer not to have this, but not having the feature at all is a lot worse than this wart.
>
> I, again, give that a firm "maybe". If the warts end up annoying 1%
> of the users who try to use this feature, then you're right. If they
> end up making a substantial percentage of people who try to use this
> feature give up on it, then we've added a bunch of complexity and
> future code maintenance for little real gain. I'm not ruling out the
> possibility that you're 100% correct, but I'm not nearly as convinced
> of that as you are.
I agree that these warts are annoying but I also think the limitations
can be explained pretty easily to users (e.g. by explaining it in the
manual how REINDEX CONCURRENTLY creates a new index to replace the old
one), and I think that is the important question about if a useful
feature with warts should be merged or not. Does it make things
substantially harder for the average user to grok?
And I would argue that his feature is useful for quite many, based on my
experience running a semi-large database. Index bloat happens and
without REINDEX CONCURRENTLY it can be really annoying to solve,
especially for primary keys. Certainly more people have problems with
index bloat than the number of people who store index oids in their
database.
Andreas
--
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: andreas@proxel.se, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
In-Reply-To: <65552c19-32fb-7f4f-7b72-e92bbd6e1d61@proxel.se>
* 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