Re: {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-12-04T14:37:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Dec-04, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:

> * This one is mostly for me to understand. There are couple of places
>   with a commentary that 'PROC_IN_SAFE_IC is not necessary, because the
>   transaction only takes a snapshot to do some catalog manipulation'.
>   But for some of them I don't immediately see in the relevant code
>   anything related to snapshots. E.g. one in DefineIndex is followed by
>   WaitForOlderSnapshots (which seems to only do waiting, not taking a
>   snapshot), index_set_state_flags and CacheInvalidateRelcacheByRelid.
>   Is taking a snapshot hidden somewhere there inside?

Well, they're actually going to acquire an Xid, not a snapshot, so the
comment is slightly incorrect; I'll fix it, thanks for pointing that
out.  The point stands: because those transactions are of very short
duration (at least of very short duration after the point where the XID
is obtained), it's not necessary to set the PROC_IN_SAFE_IC flag, since
it won't cause any disruption to other processes.

It is possible that I copied the wrong comment in DefineIndex.  (I only
noticed that one after I had mulled over the ones in
ReindexRelationConcurrently, each of which is skipping setting the flag
for slightly different reasons.)



Commits

  1. VACUUM: ignore indexing operations with CONCURRENTLY

  2. Avoid spurious wait in concurrent reindex

  3. Invent struct ReindexIndexInfo