Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2012-10-18T09:20:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- 0001-Fix-concurrency-issues-in-concurrent-index-drops.patch (text/x-patch) patch 0001
- 0002-Fix-that-DROP-INDEX-CONCURRENT-could-leave-behind-an.patch (text/x-patch) patch 0002
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 06:12:02 AM Kevin Grittner wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Hmm. The comment is probably better now, but I've been re-checking > > the code, and I think my actual code change is completely wrong. > > Give me a bit to sort this out. > > I'm having trouble seeing a way to make this work without rearranging > the code for concurrent drop to get to a state where it has set > indisvalid = false, made that visible to all processes, and ensured > that all scans of the index are complete -- while indisready is still > true. That is the point where TransferPredicateLocksToHeapRelation() > could be safely called. Then we would need to set indisready = false, > make that visible to all processes, and ensure that all access to the > index is complete. I can't see where it works to set both flags at > the same time. I want to sleep on it to see if I can come up with any > other way, but right now that's the only way I'm seeing to make DROP > INDEX CONCURRENTLY compatible with SERIALIZABLE transactions. :-( In a nearby bug I had to restructure the code that in a way thats similar to this anyway, so that seems fine. Maybe you can fix the bug ontop of the two attached patches? Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services