On 2013-09-27 05:41:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In this case, doing a call to WaitForOldSnapshots after the swap phase
> is enough. It was included in past versions of the patch but removed
> in the last 2 versions.
I don't think it is. I really, really suggest following the protocol
used by index_drop down to the t and document every *slight* deviation
carefully.
We've had more than one bug in index_drop's concurrent feature.
> Btw, taking the problem from another viewpoint... This feature has now
> 3 patches, the 2 first patches doing only code refactoring. Could it
> be possible to have a look at those ones first? Straight-forward
> things should go first, simplifying the core feature evaluation.
I haven't looked at them in detail, but they looked good on a quick
pass. I'll make another pass, but that won't be before, say, Tuesday.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
