Re: Is it safe to rename an index through pg_class update?

From: Kouber Saparev <kouber(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is it safe to rename an index through pg_class update?
Date: 2020-03-10 11:20:01
Message-ID: CAN4RuQvm3gsErn-xWsoaO+B1eL_byUW=zdXjWU4SPwOoX0_kHQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

На пн, 9.03.2020 г. в 20:34 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> написа:

> You'd not have to take an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE. A lower level would
> suffice, e.g. SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, which still allows data changes.
>
> > There is nobody else doing DDLs except me - Mr. DBA, so I guess I am
> > safe on this side. ;)
>
> If autovacuum triggered a vacuum/analyze it'd would e.g. also try to
> update pg_class.
>

I can so to say then use the strategy behind Peter Eisentraut's patch
(reduce index rename locks) applied in version 12 in my case (9.3) manually.
As far as I can see (and understand the source code), only the table
holding the index is locked (and not pg_class).

db=# begin;
BEGIN
db=*# lock table x in share update exclusive mode;
LOCK TABLE
db=*# update pg_class set relname = 'y_idx' where oid = 'x_idx'::regclass;
UPDATE 1
db=*# commit;
COMMIT
It looks good. The only exceptional case I am able to discover is when the
index is used within a constraint, in which case I should also update
pg_constraint.
Thank's again for the accurate responses.

Regards,
--
Kouber Saparev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PegoraroF10 2020-03-10 12:16:11 Re: How to discover what table is
Previous Message Nicola Contu 2020-03-10 09:26:26 Streaming replication - 11.5