Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 2013-02-07 03:01:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > What about
>
> > 3) Use reltoastidxid if != InvalidOid and manually build the list (using
> > RelationGetIndexList) otherwise?
>
> Do we actually need reltoastidxid at all? I always thought having that
> field was a case of premature optimization.

I am a bit doubtful its really measurable as well. Really supporting a
dynamic number of indexes might be noticeable because we would need to
allocate memory et al for each toasted Datum, but only supporting one or
two seems easy enough.

The only advantage besides the dubious performance advantage of my
proposed solution is that less code needs to change as only
toast_save_datum() would need to change.

> There might be some case
> for keeping it to avoid breaking any client-side code that might be
> looking at it ... but if you're proposing changing the field contents
> anyway, that argument goes right out the window.

Well, it would only be 0/InvalidOid while being reindexed concurrently,
but yea.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services