On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 03:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo in the patch to create the exact same
>> index definition as the original one being reindexed, and that's a
>> huge maintenance burden for the future. You can blame me for that in
>> the current patch. I am wondering if it would not just be better to
>> generate a CREATE INDEX query string and then use the SPI to create
>> the index, and also do the following extensions at SQL level:
>> - Add a sort of WITH NO DATA clause where the index is created, so the
>> index is created empty, and is marked invalid and not ready.
>> - Extend pg_get_indexdef_string() with an optional parameter to
>> enforce the index name to something else, most likely it should be
>> extended with the WITH NO DATA/INVALID clause, which should just be a
>> storage parameter by the way.
>> By doing something like that what the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY code path
>> should just be careful about is that it chooses an index name that
>> avoids any conflicts.
>
>
> Hm, I am not sure how much that would help since a lot of the mumb-jumbo is
> by necessity in the step where we move the constraints over from the old
> index to the new.
Well, the idea is really to get rid of that as there are already
facilities of this kind for CREATE TABLE LIKE in the parser and ALTER
TABLE when rewriting a relation. It is not really attractive to have a
3rd method in the backend code to do the same kind of things, for a
method that is even harder to maintain than the other two.
--
Michael
