| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Date: | 2014-11-03 18:56:26 |
| Message-ID: | 5457CFDA.7050001@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/1/14, 1:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 02:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Yeah, if we were trying to duplicate the behavior of indisvalid, there'd
>>> need to be a way to detect the invalid index at plan time and not use it.
>>> But I'm not sure that that's actually an improvement from the user's
>>> standpoint: what they'd see is queries suddenly, and silently, performing
>>> a lot worse than they expect. An explicit complaint about the necessary
>>> REINDEX seems more user-friendly from where I sit.
>> A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you
>> bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes.
>
>
> It's a bit of a pity we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
Reviews welcome: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1563
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2014-11-03 19:14:03 | Repeatable read and serializable transactions see data committed after tx start |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-03 18:06:39 | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |