On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Now that we have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, I think reindexdb is going to
> gain more popularity.
>
> Please don't reuse a file name as generic as "parallel.c" -- it's
> annoying when navigating source. Maybe conn_parallel.c multiconn.c
> connscripts.c admconnection.c ...?
>
> If your server crashes or is stopped midway during the reindex, you
> would have to start again from scratch, and it's tedious (if it's
> possible at all) to determine which indexes were missed. I think it
> would be useful to have a two-phase mode: in the initial phase reindexdb
> computes the list of indexes to be reindexed and saves them into a work
> table somewhere. In the second phase, it reads indexes from that table
> and processes them, marking them as done in the work table. If the
> second phase crashes or is stopped, it can be restarted and consults the
> work table. I would keep the work table, as it provides a bit of an
> audit trail. It may be important to be able to run even if unable to
> create such a work table (because of the <ironic>numerous</> users that
> DROP DATABASE postgres).
>
> Maybe we'd have two flags in the work table for each index:
> "reindex requested", "reindex done".
I think we have a similar issue with adding checksums, so let's address
with a generic framework and use it for all cases, like vacuumdb too.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
