From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Preventing index scans for non-recoverable index AMs |
Date: | 2008-12-18 00:23:16 |
Message-ID: | 20081218002316.GM4453@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 18:01 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > We don't yet have a mechanism for an
> > > index AM to say "damn, this index is screwed up, don't use it".
> >
> > mark pg_index.indisvalid and/or pg_index.indisready to false in the
> > hot standby node?
>
> We can't edit the database until recovery is over, so that doesn't help
> us while in recovery mode. So not an option.
Maybe we should add a WAL record that's the physical representation for
"mark this index invalid", and have any transaction that modifies a hash
index write that to WAL. It should be simple code to write, because
the underlying replay is based on a regular heap update.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-12-18 00:55:58 | Re: Coding TODO for 8.4: Synch Rep |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-12-18 00:11:16 | Re: Summary: changes needed in function defaults behavior |