Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2012-11-27 16:31:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Isn't inisprimary updated when an ALTER TABLE ... ADD PRIMARY KEY
>>> ... USING someindex ; is done? Also I think indoption might be written
>>> to as well.
>> Ugh, you're right. Somebody wasn't paying attention when those ALTER
>> commands were added.
On closer look, indoption is never updated --- perhaps you were thinking
about pg_class.reloptions. indisprimary, indimmediate, and
indisclustered are all subject to post-creation updates though.
>> We could probably alleviate the consequences of this by having those
>> operations reset indcheckxmin if the tuple's old xmin is below the
>> GlobalXmin horizon. That's something for later though --- it's not
>> a data corruption issue, it just means that the index might unexpectedly
>> not be used for queries for a little bit after an ALTER.
> mark_index_clustered() does the same btw, its not a problem in the
> CLUSTER ... USING ...; case because that creates a new pg_index entry
> anyway but in the ALTER TABLE one thats not the case.
After further study I think the situation is that
(1) The indisvalid/indisready/indislive updates in CREATE/DROP INDEX
CONCURRENTLY can, and must, be done in-place since we don't have
exclusive lock on the parent table.
(2) All the other updates can be transactional because we hold
sufficient locks to ensure that nothing bad will happen. The proposed
reductions in ALTER TABLE lock strength would break this in several
cases, but that's a problem for another day.
Attached is a very preliminary draft patch for this. I've not addressed
the question of whether we can clear indcheckxmin during transactional
updates of pg_index rows, but I think it covers everything else talked
about in this thread.
regards, tom lane
