On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-11-12 16:11:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> >> If REINDEX cannot work without an exclusive lock, we should invent some
>> >> other qualifier, like WITH FEWER LOCKS.
>> >
>> > What he said.
>
> I'm unconvinced. A *short* exclusive lock (just to update two pg_class
> row), still gives most of the benefits of CONCURRENTLY.
I am pretty doubtful about that. It's still going to require you to
wait for all transactions to drain out of the table while new ones are
blocked from entering. Which sucks. Unless all of your transactions
are very short, but that's not necessarily typical.
> The problem is that it's very hard to avoid the wrong index's
> relfilenode being used when swapping the relfilenodes between two
> indexes.
How about storing both the old and new relfilenodes in the same pg_class entry?
1. Take a snapshot.
2. Index all the tuples in that snapshot.
3. Publish the new relfilenode to an additional pg_class column,
relnewfilenode or similar.
4. Wait until everyone can see step #3.
5. Rescan the table and add any missing tuples to the index.
6. Set some flag in pg_class to mark the relnewfilenode as active and
relfilenode as not to be used for queries.
7. Wait until everyone can see step #6.
8. Set some flag in pg_class to mark relfilenode as not even to be opened.
9. Wait until everyone can see step #8.
10. Drop old relfilenode.
11. Clean up by setting relfilenode = relnewfilenode, relfilenode = 0.
This is basically CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (without the first step
where we out-wait people who might create now-invalid HOT chains,
because that can't arise with a REINDEX of an existing index) plus
DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
