MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANtu0oiLc-+7h9zfzOVy2cv2UuYk_5MUReVLnVbOay6OgD_KGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WgW6pj48xJhG_YLUE1QS+n9Yv0AZQwaWeb-r+X=HAxU_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0oizNtPUrPB0Mh+2vyjdijTX=LZvO5_dZN3+NqvE-CFPtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wi3BFLkFBcZ+Brfbr-mGBCcWXcWuHucnCnw5ZOQotc6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0ojRX=osoiXL9JJG6g6qOowXVbVYX+mDsN+2jmFVe=eG7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wg03Ps_StwEhgCdSn7VXY9ZUM=zCrf-m1dRZpTWv6wD_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0oj66JjAq8xyRSeO=MuRHYS2XsYbhHRRESHtOcLJs=3+Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0ogT2Qn7-q_jK6+DqBQvFoTt69eQJDKxJARXV9pdWjd0Gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0ogXgNkEuxbDRwznAZpxEXRmj3NzOen3y-RGHDwig0YBRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtu0oi+FTMqDb+6Bv8w7VHiTFVMB1uAAip_P841WQH+ktPixw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEze2WgeyVnDb_j4gJQYC4+HcSsYQAdeRA1-F0KDnJ=Y0A_TzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEze2WgeyVnDb_j4gJQYC4+HcSsYQAdeRA1-F0KDnJ=Y0A_TzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michail Nikolaev <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:45:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CANtu0oga9zqqEFhdmcWyJTK4d6EGMJsMB_LMgVSE8ar0xVm7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANtu0oga9zqqEFhdmcWyJTK4d6EGMJsMB_LMgVSE8ar0xVm7Ew%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello!

> Correct, but there are changes being discussed where we would freeze
> tuples during pruning as well [0], which would invalidate that
> implementation detail. And, if I had to choose between improved
> opportunistic freezing and improved R/CIC, I'd probably choose
> improved freezing over R/CIC.

As another option, we could extract a dedicated horizon value for an
opportunistic freezing.
And use some flags in R/CIC backend to keep it at the required value.

Best regards,
Michail.