From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, "Pgsql performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: When/if to Reindex |
Date: | 2007-08-24 20:06:53 |
Message-ID: | 876434zogy.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> "Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So, can we simply trust what's in pg_class.relpages and ignore looking
>> directly at the index?
>
> No, we can't. In the light of morning I remember more about the reason
> for the aforesaid patch: it's actually unsafe to read the pg_class row
> at all if you have not got lock on the index. We are reading with
> SnapshotNow in order to be sure we see up-to-date info, and that means
> that a concurrent update of the row (eg, for REINDEX to report the new
> relfilenode) can have the following behavior:
Should reindex be doing an in-place update? Don't we have to do in-place
updates for other system catalogs which are read in snapshotnow for precisely
the same reasons?
Alternatively, why does the planner need access to the pg_class entry and not
just the pg_index record?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bill Moran | 2007-08-24 20:41:44 | Re: significant vacuum issues - looking for suggestions |
Previous Message | Kevin Kempter | 2007-08-24 19:57:23 | significant vacuum issues - looking for suggestions |