| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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: | 2013-03-09 18:55:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHwkBxyCTKnL9fUFTczPWqaKvv_On-ceRFRd=0fD+YOJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Why do you want to temporarily mark it as valid? I don't see any
> requirement that it is set to that during validate_index() (which imo is
> badly named, but...).
> I'd just set it to valid in the same transaction that does the swap.
+1. I cannot realize yet why isprimary flag needs to be set even
in the invalid index. In current patch, we can easily get into the
inconsistent situation, i.e., a table having more than one primary
key indexes.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2013-03-09 19:38:34 | Re: Why do we still perform a check for pre-sorted input within qsort variants? |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-03-09 18:48:00 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |