On 2012/10/03, at 23:52, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 04:28:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Maybe I am missing something here, but reindex concurrently should do
>>> 1) BEGIN
>>> 2) Lock table in share update exlusive
>>> 3) lock old index
>>> 3) create new index
>>> 4) obtain session locks on table, old index, new index
>>> 5) commit
>>> 6) process till newindex->insisready (no new locks)
>>> 7) process till newindex->indisvalid (no new locks)
>>> 8) process till !oldindex->indisvalid (no new locks)
>>> 9) process till !oldindex->indisready (no new locks)
>>> 10) drop all session locks
>>> 11) lock old index exlusively which should be "invisible" now
>>> 12) drop old index
>>
>> You can't drop the session locks until you're done. Consider somebody
>> else trying to do a DROP TABLE between steps 10 and 11, for instance.
> Yea, the session lock on the table itself probably shouldn't be dropped. If
> were holding only that one there shouldn't be any additional deadlock dangers
> when dropping the index due to lock upgrades as were doing the normal dance
> any DROP INDEX does. They seem pretty unlikely in a !valid !ready table
>
Just à note...
My patch drops the locks on parent table and indexes at the end of process, after dropping the old indexes ;)
Michael
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres
> --
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
