Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2012-12-08 21:24:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> So whatever the method used for swapping: relfilenode switch or relname
>> switch, you need to modify the pg_class entry of the old and new indexes.
> The point is that with a relname switch the pg_class.oid of the index
> changes. Which is a bad idea because it will possibly be referred to by
> pg_depend entries. Relfilenodes - which certainly live in pg_class too,
> thats not the point - aren't referred to externally though. So if
> everything else in pg_class/pg_index stays the same a relfilenode switch
> imo saves you a lot of trouble.
I do not believe that it is safe to modify an index's relfilenode *nor*
its OID without exclusive lock; both of those are going to be in use to
identify and access the index in concurrent sessions. The only things
we could possibly safely swap in a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY are the index
relnames, which are not used for identification by the system itself.
(I think. It's possible that even this breaks something.)
Even then, any such update of the pg_class rows is dependent on
switching to MVCC-style catalog access, which frankly is pie in the sky
at the moment; the last time pgsql-hackers talked seriously about that,
there seemed to be multiple hard problems besides mere performance.
If you want to wait for that, it's a safe bet that we won't see this
feature for a few years.
I'm tempted to propose that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY simply not try to
preserve the index name exactly. Something like adding or removing
trailing underscores would probably serve to generate a nonconflicting
name that's not too unsightly. Or just generate a new name using the
same rules that CREATE INDEX would when no name is specified. Yeah,
it's a hack, but what about the CONCURRENTLY commands isn't a hack?
regards, tom lane
