Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB949FA663 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:44:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36988-08 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:44:03 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A569FA4AE for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:44:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7OLhvoJ006145; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:43:58 -0400 (EDT) To: Gregory Stark cc: "Steven Flatt" , "Mark Kirkwood" , "Bill Moran" , "Vivek Khera" , "Pgsql performance" Subject: Re: When/if to Reindex In-reply-to: <876434zogy.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> References: <357fa7590707181008k65ab2f20l55bebb3c14f52770@mail.gmail.com> <11801.1186624308@sss.pgh.pa.us> <357fa7590708090651p71b9bc47n66739f8dbbb4ff57@mail.gmail.com> <357fa7590708220955h441cd75ap4c0f0342a1c30a14@mail.gmail.com> <873aybw2le.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <357fa7590708231525h2f48ce4dw3e48ecca5ccddf72@mail.gmail.com> <17370.1187927942@sss.pgh.pa.us> <46CE6883.10104@paradise.net.nz> <357fa7590708240722m204d678eid02b7ce3470eba1a@mail.gmail.com> <1759.1187972125@sss.pgh.pa.us> <357fa7590708240956k18e3ba7dv735cdaa99a667312@mail.gmail.com> <2774.1187976535@sss.pgh.pa.us> <876434zogy.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> Comments: In-reply-to Gregory Stark message dated "Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:06:53 +0100" Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:43:57 -0400 Message-ID: <6144.1187991837@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/298 X-Sequence-Number: 26428 Gregory Stark writes: > Should reindex be doing an in-place update? Not if you'd like it to be crash-safe. > Alternatively, why does the planner need access to the pg_class entry and not > just the pg_index record? For one thing, to find out how big the index is ... though if we could get around that problem, it might indeed be possible to treat the pg_index records as property of the parent table not the index itself, which would give us license to read them without locking the index. regards, tom lane