From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ragnar <gnari(at)hive(dot)is>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Online index builds |
Date: | 2006-12-08 00:31:56 |
Message-ID: | 1165537916.13953.10.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-general pgsql-www |
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > After reading through the archives, it looks like Gregory Stark
> > suggested a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, which would certainly solve the
> > awkwardness of maintenance on a primary key. I didn't see much
> > objection, maybe it's worth consideration for 8.3?
>
> That idea was bounced on the grounds that it requires a DROP INDEX to
> occur somewhere, and that can't be concurrent, and you'd surely not like
> to go through all the work of a CONCURRENTLY rebuild only to get a
> deadlock failure at the very end.
>
I don't understand. CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY can't be run in a
transaction block anyway, so a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY wouldn't either. So
how (or when) would you deadlock?
I see it as the following logical operations:
(1) CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY tmp;
(2) swap the relfilenode of the old index and new index
(3) DROP INDEX tmp;
If this was all already hashed out on -hackers, you can point me to the
discussion if it's easier.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-08 00:44:10 | Re: Online index builds |
Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-12-08 00:05:02 | Re: Online index builds |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-08 00:44:10 | Re: Online index builds |
Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-12-08 00:05:02 | Re: Online index builds |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-08 00:44:10 | Re: Online index builds |
Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-12-08 00:05:02 | Re: Online index builds |