From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb |
Date: | 2019-07-05 16:22:19 |
Message-ID: | 2b1504ac-3d6c-11ec-e1ce-3daf132b3d37@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-07-02 10:45, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> It just seemed wrong to me to allow a partial processing for something
> that's aimed to prevent corruption. I'd think that if users are
> knowledgeable enough to only reindex a subset of indexes/tables in
> such cases, they can also discard indexes that don't get affected by a
> collation lib upgrade. I'm not strongly opposed to supporting if
> though, as there indeed can be valid use cases.
We are moving in this direction. Thomas Munro has proposed an approach
for tracking collation versions on a per-object level rather than
per-database. So then we'd need a way to reindex not those indexes
affected by collation but only those affected by collation and not yet
fixed.
One could also imagine a behavior where not-yet-fixed indexes are simply
ignored by the planner. So the gradual upgrading approach that Tomas
described is absolutely a possibility.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2019-07-05 16:32:04 | SHOW CREATE |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-07-05 16:16:03 | Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb |