| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2017-02-23 20:51:48 |
| Message-ID: | 03838fa6-d729-791a-2bea-611b321fc386@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/19/17 5:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> (1) a multi-batch hash join, (2) a nested loop,
> and (3) a merge join. (2) is easy to implement but will generate a
> ton of random I/O if the table is not resident in RAM. (3) is most
> suitable for very large tables but takes more work to code, and is
> also likely to be a lot slower for small tables than a hash or
> nestloop-based approach.
As I understand it, #3 is already in place for validate_index(). I think
you'd just need a different callback that checks the heap key.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-02-23 20:58:15 | Re: Add checklist item for psql completion to commitfest review |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-02-23 20:37:41 | Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |