Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:

> On 2013-03-06 20:59:37 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > OK. Patches updated... Please see attached.
> > With all the work done on those patches, I suppose this is close to being
> > something clean...
>
> Yes, its looking good. There are loads of improvements possible but
> those can very well be made incrementally.
> > > I have the feeling we are talking past each other. Unless I miss
> > > something *there is no* WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks between phase 2 and
> > > 3. But one WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks for all would be totally
> > > sufficient.
> > >
> > OK, sorry for the confusion. I added a call to
> WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks
> > also before phase 3.
> > Honestly, I am still not very comfortable with the fact that the
> ShareLock
> > wait on parent relation is done outside each index transaction for build
> > and validation... Changed as requested though...
>
> Could you detail your concerns a bit? I tried to think it through
> multiple times now and I still can't see a problem. The lock only
> ensures that nobody has the relation open with the old index definition
> in mind...
>
I am making a comparison with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY where the ShareLock
wait is made inside the build and validation transactions. Was there any
particular reason why CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait is done inside a
transaction block?
That's my only concern.
-- 
Michael