Horton
Menu

Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-10-08T23:12:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> writes:
> Yeah, what's the risk to renaming an index during concurrent access?

SnapshotNow searches for the pg_class row could get broken by *any*
transactional update of that row, whether it's for a change of relname
or some other field.

A lot of these problems would go away if we rejiggered the definition of
SnapshotNow to be more like MVCC.  We have discussed that in the past,
but IIRC it's not exactly a simple or risk-free change in itself.
Still, maybe we should start thinking about doing that instead of trying
to make REINDEX CONCURRENTLY safe given the existing infrastructure.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Background worker processes

  2. Fix assorted bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.

  3. Work around unportable behavior of malloc(0) and realloc(NULL, 0).

  4. Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries.