From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb |
Date: | 2019-07-02 02:49:28 |
Message-ID: | 20190702024928.GC1388@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Couldn't we make this enormously simpler and less bug-prone by just
>> dictating that --jobs applies only to reindex-table operations?
I had the same argument about the first patch sets actually, but... :)
> That would also mean that we'll have to fallback on doing reindex at
> table-level, even if we only want to reindex indexes that depends on
> glibc. I'm afraid that this will often add a huge penalty.
Yes, I would expect that most of the time glibc-sensible indexes are
also mixed with other ones which we don't care about here. One
advantage of the argument from Tom though is that it is possible to
introduce --jobs with minimal steps:
1) Refactor the code for connection slots, without the cell addition
2) Introduce --jobs without INDEX support.
In short, the conflict business between indexes is something which
could be tackled afterwards and with a separate patch. Parallel
indexes at table-level has value in itself, particularly with
CONCURRENTLY coming in the picture.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-02 02:55:07 | Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-02 02:44:28 | Re: cleanup & refactoring on reindexdb.c |