Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date
Msg-id 20130926114324.GB6672@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
List pgsql-hackers
On 2013-09-26 20:40:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2013-09-26 12:13:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> > 2) I don't think the drop algorithm used now is correct. Your
> >> > index_concurrent_set_dead() sets both indisvalid = false and indislive =
> >> > false at the same time. It does so after doing a WaitForVirtualLocks() -
> >> > but that's not sufficient. Between waiting and setting indisvalid =
> >> > false another transaction could start which then would start using that
> >> > index. Which will not get updated anymore by other concurrent backends
> >> > because of inislive = false.
> >> > You really need to follow index_drop's lead here and first unset
> >> > indisvalid then wait till nobody can use the index for querying anymore
> >> > and only then unset indislive.
> >
> >> Sorry, I do not follow you here. index_concurrent_set_dead calls
> >> index_set_state_flags that sets indislive and *indisready* to false,
> >> not indisvalid. The concurrent index never uses indisvalid = true so
> >> it can never be called by another backend for a read query. The drop
> >> algorithm is made to be consistent with DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY btw.
> >
> > That makes it even worse... You can do the concurrent drop only in the
> > following steps:
> > 1) set indisvalid = false, no future relcache lookups will have it as valid

> indisvalid is never set to true for the concurrent index. Swap is done
> with concurrent index having indisvalid = false and former index with
> indisvalid = true. The concurrent index is validated with
> index_validate in a transaction before swap transaction.

Yes. I've described how it *has* to be done, not how it's done.

The current method of going straight to isready = false for the original
index will result in wrong results because it's not updated anymore
while it's still being used.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY