On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Couldn't we make this enormously simpler and less bug-prone by just
>> dictating that --jobs applies only to reindex-table operations?
I had the same argument about the first patch sets actually, but... :)
> That would also mean that we'll have to fallback on doing reindex at
> table-level, even if we only want to reindex indexes that depends on
> glibc. I'm afraid that this will often add a huge penalty.
Yes, I would expect that most of the time glibc-sensible indexes are
also mixed with other ones which we don't care about here. One
advantage of the argument from Tom though is that it is possible to
introduce --jobs with minimal steps:
1) Refactor the code for connection slots, without the cell addition
2) Introduce --jobs without INDEX support.
In short, the conflict business between indexes is something which
could be tackled afterwards and with a separate patch. Parallel
indexes at table-level has value in itself, particularly with
CONCURRENTLY coming in the picture.
--
Michael
