| From: | rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: When do vacuumed pages/tuples become available for reuse? |
| Date: | 2019-04-12 10:40:17 |
| Message-ID: | 874426b2-2e1f-4896-3bd7-7cdc064fabe1@mail.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 04/12/2019 08:39 AM, Michael Lewis wrote:
>
> Way to many indexes. I'm going to have a hard time convincing our
> programmers to get rid of any of them )
>
>
> You can create (concurrently) an identical index with a new name, then
> drop old version concurrently and repeat for each. It doesn't help you
> figure out the root cause and how to prevent it from happening again,
> but gets you to a fresh start at least.
Thanks for the tip. I believe other than increasing load temporarily
creating a new index, dropping the old one and renaming the new one to
the old one are transparent and (almost) lock-less operations? What
would happen to user queries during DROP INDEX? Would they block on it,
or, being unable to read it without blocking, will they pick the new one
based on the same column(s)? And, likewise, is ALTER INDEX ... RENAME
... an instant operation, I hope?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tiffany Thang | 2019-04-12 10:54:37 | multiple indexes on the same column |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-12 05:14:54 | Re: When do vacuumed pages/tuples become available for reuse? |