From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
Date: | 2014-11-01 18:50:27 |
Message-ID: | 20141101185027.GM17790@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-11-01 14:45:47 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 11/01/2014 02:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>Yeah, if we were trying to duplicate the behavior of indisvalid, there'd
> >>need to be a way to detect the invalid index at plan time and not use it.
> >>But I'm not sure that that's actually an improvement from the user's
> >>standpoint: what they'd see is queries suddenly, and silently, performing
> >>a lot worse than they expect. An explicit complaint about the necessary
> >>REINDEX seems more user-friendly from where I sit.
> >A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you
> >bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes.
>
>
> It's a bit of a pity we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
We essentially don't have it because people opined towards the end of
9.4 that a brief (as in two pg_class updates) AccessExclusive lock
window makes the feature moot. I still think that's quite heavily
disregarding the practial reality.
Luckily opinion seems to have shifted a bit again.
It'd also be really helpful if REINDEX CONCURRENTLY had a way to only
reindex invalid indexes. But that probably is just a smop.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-01 18:51:31 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-01 18:48:20 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |