Re: [HACKERS] 7.0 status request - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] 7.0 status request
Date
Msg-id m11owLb-0003kIC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] 7.0 status request  (Brian Hirt <bhirt@mobygames.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I submitted a very small patch to dumpdb that creates SQL that will
> reindex the database.  It's then trivial to then redirect that output to
> pgsql on UNIX.  I run into this problem frequently, so I wanted
> to automate the process.  I never saw a reply to my post on the list,
> so I wonder if it made it.
>
> I'm not sure how reindexdb worked, but if it just generated SQL based of
> the indexes in the database it would make sense to only have the SQL
> generation in one common place instead of having it in dumpdb and reindexdb.
> Two branches of nearly identical code would be a pain to maintain.

    It's  a  different  approach.  And  recreating system catalog
    indices cannot work through the regular  psql  interface.  So
    your pgdump enhancement will never be able to do that.

    You  need  to  be  in  bootstrap processing mode (the one the
    system is running in while initdb) to drop or create  indices
    on  the  system catalog tables. Therefore the postmaster must
    NOT be running and you have a (very limited) interface to the
    bootstrapping  postgres process. Thus you'll have to talk the
    *.bki.source dialect to issue commands.

    I already made some tests, but they all corrupted  more  than
    they  fixed  :-).   Seems  the  semantics of the Postgres 4.2
    reindexdb have been hit by changes in  index  handling  since
    1994. Not really surprising to me.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.0 status request
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] All forked up