| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |
| Date: | 2021-01-13 21:05:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20210113210537.GA15374@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:33 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > This is true. So I propose
> >
> > Like any long-running transaction, <command>REINDEX</command> can
> > affect which tuples can be removed by concurrent <command>VACUUM</command>
> > on any table.
>
> That sounds good to me.
Great, pushed with one more wording tweak: "REINDEX on any table can
affect ... on any other table". To pg12 and up.
I wondered about noting whether only processes in the current database
are affected, but then I noticed that the current code since commit
dc7420c2c927 uses a completely different algorithm than what we had with
GetOldestXmin() and does not consider database boundaries at all.
This doesn't sound great to me, since a misbehaved database can now
affect others ... Maybe I misunderstand that code.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
"This is what I like so much about PostgreSQL. Most of the surprises
are of the "oh wow! That's cool" Not the "oh shit!" kind. :)"
Scott Marlowe, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2008-10/msg00152.php
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2021-01-13 21:08:33 | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-01-13 21:01:12 | Re: src/tutorial/funcs.source: Wrong comment? |