Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Ilya Gladyshev <ilya.v.gladyshev@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, 李杰(慎追) <adger.lj@alibaba-inc.com>, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2023-07-13T02:27:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:28:24PM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote: > Justin Pryzby писал 2023-03-26 17:51: > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 01:09:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > This currently handles partitions with a loop around the whole CIC > > > implementation, which means that things like WaitForLockers() happen > > > once for each index, the same as REINDEX CONCURRENTLY on a partitioned > > > table. Contrast that with ReindexRelationConcurrently(), which handles > > > all the indexes on a table in one pass by looping around indexes within > > > each phase. > > > > Rebased over the progress reporting fix (27f5c712b). > > > > I added a list of (intermediate) partitioned tables, rather than looping > > over the list of inheritors again, to save calling rel_get_relkind(). > > > > I think this patch is done. > > Overall looks good to me. However, I think that using 'partitioned' as list > of partitioned index oids in DefineIndex() is a bit misleading - we've just > used it as boolean, specifying if we are dealing with a partitioned > relation. Right. This is also rebased on 8c852ba9a4 (Allow some exclusion constraints on partitions). -- Justin
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix assertion failure with REINDEX and event triggers
- c426f7c2b36a 17.0 cited