| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-10-05 21:14:02 |
| Message-ID: | 16063.1349471642@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Maybe another idea is that the reindexing is staged: the user would
> first run a command to create the replacement index, and leave both
> present until the user runs a second command (which acquires a strong
> lock) that executes the switch. Somehow similar to a constraint created
> as NOT VALID (which runs without a strong lock) which can be later
> validated separately.
Yeah. We could consider
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (already exists)
SWAP INDEXES (requires ex-lock, swaps names and constraint dependencies;
or maybe just implement as swap of relfilenodes?)
DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
The last might have some usefulness in its own right, anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2012-10-05 23:12:59 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-10-05 21:07:03 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |