From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2013-02-12 13:04:18 |
Message-ID: | 20130212130418.GC12852@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-02-12 21:54:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Changing only toast_save_datum:
> >
> > [... code ...]
> >
> Yes, I have spent a little bit of time looking at the code related to
> retoastindxid and thought about this possibility. It would make the changes
> far easier with the existing patch, it will also be necessary to update the
> catalog pg_statio_all_tables to make the case where OID is InvalidOid
> correct with this catalog.
What I proposed above wouldn't need the case where toastrelidx =
InvalidOid, so no need to worry about that.
> However, I do not think it is as clean as simply
> removing retoastindxid and have all the toast APIs running consistent
> operations, aka using only RelationGetIndexList.
Sure. This just seems easier as it really only requires changes inside
toast_save_datum() and which mostly avoids any overhead (not even
additional palloc()s) if there is only one index.
That would lower the burden of proof that no performance regressions
exist (which I guess would be during querying) and the amount of
possibly external breakage due to removing the field...
Not sure whats the best way to do this when committing. But I think you
could incorporate something like the proposed to continue working on the
patch. It really should only take some minutes to incorporate it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-02-12 13:19:41 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-12 12:57:21 | Re: parser_analyze freeing memory which is later referenced |