Where are we on this? Does the code path now make sense, at least? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:45 AM > > To: Hiroshi Inoue > > Cc: 'Tom Lane'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/backend > > catalog/index.c comma ... > > > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > > > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Why could you determine it ? Is PostgreSQL your system ? > > > > > > > > Well, if you prefer, we can have a discussion and vote about > > > > it on pghackers. > > > > > > Oh discussion *first* is good but You committed *first*. > > > So isn't it reasonable to revert your change *first* ? > > > > > > This is the second time you disable the on-line reindex > > > functionality for system tables. Why must I explain the > > > same thing many times ? > > > > Actually, as a comment here, since I *think* I understand where Tom is > > coming from ... and since I've either missed it, or it hasn't been > > answered yet ... why was the original patch incomplete in > > only addressing > > 1 of 3 REINDEX conditions? Is there a reason why that one condition > > is/was safe to do it with, but not the other 2? > > Sorry to trouble you. > > In the first place, REINDEX is neither an SQL standard command nor > a preferable one. > > When I introduced REINDEX command before 7.0, it was not > transaction-safe and only allowed to call under standalone mode > essentially. > > Before 7.1, the introduction of pg_class.relfilenode gave us a possibilty > to make REINDEX command transaction-safe and I tried to make > REINDEX available under postmaster and the result was > 1.All user indexes/tables could be REINDEXed under postmaster > 2.System tables except shared or nailed ones could be REINDEXed > under postmaster. > > Note that we couldn't reindex all system tables under postmaster. > It's the main reason why I didn't implement REINDEX DATABASE > under postmaster. As for REINDEX, I have > > Tue Nov 20 02:46:13 2001 UTC (22 months ago) Tom committed > the following change which disables the functionality to reindex > system tables under postmaster. > Some minor tweaks of REINDEX processing: grab exclusive > lock a little earlier, make error checks more uniform. > > The above change was the first time he disables the functionality. > I noticed the change, complained to him and > Thu Feb 7 00:27:30 2002 UTC (19 months, 1 week ago) I > Removed a check for REINDEX TABLE. > > And this is the second time he disables the functionality without > any notification to me. Honestly I don't understand why I have to > explain this kind of thing only so as to revert the change. > > regards, > Hiroshi Inoue > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
