| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-10-08 21:57:46 |
| Message-ID: | 50734C5A.7020209@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/5/12 9:57 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In the current version of the patch, at the beginning of process a new index is created. It is a twin of the index it has to replace, meaning that it copies the dependencies of old index and creates twin entries of the old index even in pg_depend and pg_constraint also if necessary. So the old index and the new index have exactly the same data in catalog, they are completely decoupled, and you do not need to worry about the OID replacements and the visibility consequences.
Yeah, what's the risk to renaming an index during concurrent access? The only thing I can think of is an "old" backend referring to the wrong index name in an elog. That's certainly not great, but could possibly be dealt with.
Are there any other things that are directly tied to the name of an index (or of any object for that matter)?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-10-08 22:08:38 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-10-08 20:58:56 | Re: MemSetLoop ignoring the 'val' parameter |