Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dmitry Dolgov
Subject Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait
Date
Msg-id 20201109154743.sij6j5ue3j673r7h@localhost
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait  (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:14:47PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > 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.

Just to give it a shot, would the attached change be enough?

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dmitry Shulga
Date:
Subject: Re: Reduce the time required for a database recovery from archive.
Next
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets