| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-06-17 13:12:12 |
| Message-ID: | 51BF0B2C.6080703@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/17/13 8:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As mentionned by Andres, the only thing that the MVCC catalog patch can
> improve here
> is the index swap phase (index_concurrent_swap:index.c) where the
> relfilenode of the
> old and new indexes are exchanged. Now an AccessExclusiveLock is taken
> on the 2 relations
> being swap, we could leverage that to ShareUpdateExclusiveLock with the
> MVCC catalog
> access I think.
Without getting rid of the AccessExclusiveLock, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is
not really concurrent, at least not concurrent to the standard set by
CREATE and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-06-17 13:18:30 | Re: refresh materialized view concurrently |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-06-17 13:12:05 | Re: Batch API for After Triggers |