Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements

On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 at 19:37, Michail Nikolaev
<michail.nikolaev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> > I'm not a fan of this approach. Changing visibility and cleanup
> > semantics to only benefit R/CIC sounds like a pain to work with in
> > essentially all visibility-related code. I'd much rather have to deal
> > with another index AM, even if it takes more time: the changes in
> > semantics will be limited to a new plug in the index AM system and a
> > behaviour change in R/CIC, rather than behaviour that changes in all
> > visibility-checking code.
>
> Technically, this does not affect the visibility logic, only the
> clearing semantics.
> All visibility related code remains untouched.

Yeah, correct. But it still needs to update the table relations'
information after finishing creating the indexes, which I'd rather not
have to do.

> But yes, still an inelegant and a little strange-looking option.
>
> At the same time, perhaps it can be dressed in luxury
> somehow - for example, add as a first class citizen in ComputeXidHorizonsResult
> a list of blocks to clear some relations.

Not sure what you mean here, but I don't think
ComputeXidHorizonsResult should have anything to do with actual
relations.

> > But regardless of second scan snapshots, I think we can worry about
> > that part at a later moment: The first scan phase is usually the most
> > expensive and takes the most time of all phases that hold snapshots,
> > and in the above discussion we agreed that we can already reduce the
> > time that a snapshot is held during that phase significantly. Sure, it
> > isn't great that we have to scan the table again with only a single
> > snapshot, but generally phase 2 doesn't have that much to do (except
> > when BRIN indexes are involved) so this is likely less of an issue.
> > And even if it is, we would still have reduced the number of
> > long-lived snapshots by half.
>
> Hmm, but it looks like we don't have the infrastructure to "update" xmin
> propagating to the horizon after the first snapshot in a transaction is taken.

We can just release the current snapshot, and get a new one, right? I
mean, we don't actually use the transaction for much else than
visibility during the first scan, and I don't think there is a need
for an actual transaction ID until we're ready to mark the index entry
with indisready.

> One option I know of is to reuse the
> d9d076222f5b94a85e0e318339cfc44b8f26022d (1) approach.
> But if this is the case, then there is no point in re-taking the
> snapshot again during the first
> phase - just apply this "if" only for the first phase - and you're done.

Not a fan of that, as it is too sensitive to abuse. Note that
extensions will also have access to these tools, and I think we should
build a system here that's not easy to break, rather than one that is.

> Do you know any less-hacky way? Or is it a nice way to go?

I suppose we could be resetting the snapshot every so often? Or use
multiple successive TID range scans with a new snapshot each?

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent
Neon (https://neon.tech)