Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqRqXYHLufB_X--skU6aQXQeT09DvVuyWMa0eu4q03AAkA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2013-02-12 21:54:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Changing only toast_save_datum:
> >
> > [... code ...]
> >
> Yes, I have spent a little bit of time looking at the code related to
> retoastindxid and thought about this possibility. It would make the changes
> far easier with the existing patch, it will also be necessary to update the
> catalog pg_statio_all_tables to make the case where OID is InvalidOid
> correct with this catalog.

What I proposed above wouldn't need the case where toastrelidx =
InvalidOid, so no need to worry about that.
[re-reading code...] Oh ok. I missed the point in your previous email. Yeah indeed you are right.
 

> However, I do not think it is as clean as simply
> removing retoastindxid and have all the toast APIs running consistent
> operations, aka using only RelationGetIndexList.

Sure. This just seems easier as it really only requires changes inside
toast_save_datum() and which mostly avoids any overhead (not even
additional palloc()s) if there is only one index.
That would lower the burden of proof that no performance regressions
exist (which I guess would be during querying) and the amount of
possibly external breakage due to removing the field...

Not sure whats the best way to do this when committing. But I think you
could incorporate something like the proposed to continue working on the
patch. It really should only take some minutes to incorporate it.

OK I'll add the changes you are proposing. I still want to have a look at the approach for the removal of reltoastidxid btw.
--
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]