Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index

Hi,
For v13-0006-More-refactoring.patch :

+ /* It's not a shared catalog, so refuse to move it to shared tablespace
*/
+ if (params->tablespaceOid == GLOBALTABLESPACE_OID && false)
+ ereport(ERROR,

Do you intend to remove the ineffective check ?

+ else
+ heapRelation = table_open(heapId,
+ ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
+ table_close(heapRelation, NoLock);

The table_open() seems to be unnecessary since there is no check after the
open.

+ // heapRelationIds = list_make1_oid(heapId);
If the code is not needed, you can remove the above.

For v13-0005-Refactor-to-allow-reindexing-all-index-partition.patch :

+ /* Skip invalid indexes, if requested */
+ if ((options & REINDEXOPT_SKIPVALID) != 0 &&
+ get_index_isvalid(partoid))

The comment seems to diverge from the name of the flag (which says skip
valid index).

Cheers

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:34 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:06:47PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> > On 28.01.2021 17:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:51:51PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:22 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 01:31:17AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > > > Forking this thread, since the existing CFs have been closed.
> > > > > >
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200914143102.GX18552%40telsasoft.com#58b1056488451f8594b0f0ba40996afd
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The strategy is to create catalog entries for all tables with
> indisvalid=false,
> > > > > > and then process them like REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. If it's
> interrupted, it
> > > > > > leaves INVALID indexes, which can be cleaned up with DROP or
> REINDEX, same as
> > > > > > CIC on a plain table.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 01:37:44AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 09:37:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > > > > > > Note that the mentioned problem wasn't serious: there was
> missing index on
> > > > > > > child table, therefor the parent index was invalid, as
> intended. However I
> > > > > > > agree that it's not nice that the command can fail so easily
> and leave behind
> > > > > > > some indexes created successfully and some failed some not
> created at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I took your advice initially creating invalid inds.
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > That gave me the idea to layer CIC on top of Reindex, since I
> think it does
> > > > > > > exactly what's needed.
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 02:56:55PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:11:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > It would be good also to check if
> > > > > > > > we have a partition index tree that maps partially with a
> partition
> > > > > > > > table tree (aka no all table partitions have a partition
> index), where
> > > > > > > > these don't get clustered because there is no index to work
> on.
> > > > > > > This should not happen, since a incomplete partitioned index
> is "invalid".
> >
> > > > > > > I had been waiting to rebase since there hasn't been any
> review comments and I
> > > > > > > expected additional, future conflicts.
> > > > > > >
> >
> > I attempted to review this feature, but the last patch conflicts with the
> > recent refactoring, so I wasn't able to test it properly.
> > Could you please send a new version?
>
> I rebased this yesterday, so here's my latest.
>
> > 2) Here we access relation field after closing the relation. Is it safe?
> > /* save lockrelid and locktag for below */
> > heaprelid = rel->rd_lockInfo.lockRelId;
>
> Thanks, fixed this just now.
>
> > 3) leaf_partitions() function only handles indexes, so I suggest to name
> it
> > more specifically and add a comment about meaning of 'options' parameter.
> >
> > 4) I don't quite understand the idea of the regression test. Why do we
> > expect to see invalid indexes there?
> > + "idxpart_a_idx1" UNIQUE, btree (a) INVALID
>
> Because of the unique failure:
> +create unique index concurrently on idxpart (a); -- partitioned, unique
> failure
> +ERROR: could not create unique index "idxpart2_a_idx2_ccnew"
> +DETAIL: Key (a)=(10) is duplicated.
> +\d idxpart
>
> This shows that CIC first creates catalog-only INVALID indexes, and then
> reindexes them to "validate".
>
> --
> Justin
>