| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reindex concurrently and two toast indexes |
| Date: | 2020-02-18 06:39:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_bieK_PPD-NzBF1jR+QCNeJ75vZu_6hqCq_zbZHsDijgQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:19 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:06:25AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >> Hmm. There could be an argument here for skipping invalid toast
> >> indexes within reindex_index(), because we are sure about having at
> >> least one valid toast index at anytime, and these are not concerned
> >> with CIC.
> >
> > Or even automatically drop any invalid index on toast relation in
> > reindex_relation, since those can't be due to a failed CIC?
>
> No, I don't like much outsmarting REINDEX with more index drops than
> it needs to do. And this would not take care of the case with REINDEX
> INDEX done directly on a toast index.
Well, we could still do both but I get the objection. Then skipping
invalid toast indexes in reindex_relation looks like the best fix.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-02-18 06:54:18 | Re: Clean up some old cruft related to Windows |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-02-18 06:19:13 | Re: reindex concurrently and two toast indexes |