> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:11:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:16:46PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I did not set the flag in REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, but as I understand it
> > can be done too, since in essence it's the same thing as a CIC from a
> > snapshot management point of view.
>
> Yes, I see no problems for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as well as long as
> there are no predicates and expressions involved. The transactions
> that should be patched are all started in ReindexRelationConcurrently.
> The transaction of index_concurrently_swap() cannot set up that
> though. Only thing to be careful is to make sure that safe_flag is
> correct depending on the list of indexes worked on.
Hi,
After looking through the thread and reading the patch it seems good,
and there are only few minor questions:
* Doing the same for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, which does make sense. In
fact it's already mentioned in the commentaries as done, which a bit
confusing.
* Naming, to be more precise what suggested Michael:
> Could we consider renaming vacuumFlags? With more flags associated to
> a PGPROC entry that are not related to vacuum, the current naming
> makes things confusing. Something like statusFlags could fit better
> in the picture?
which sounds reasonable, and similar one about flag name
PROC_IN_SAFE_CIC - if it covers both CREATE INDEX/REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
maybe just PROC_IN_SAFE_IC?
Any plans about those questions? I can imagine that are the only missing
parts.
