Justin Pryzby писал 2023-07-13 05:27:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:28:24PM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Justin Pryzby писал 2023-03-26 17:51:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 01:09:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > This currently handles partitions with a loop around the whole CIC
> > implementation, which means that things like WaitForLockers() happen
> > once for each index, the same as REINDEX CONCURRENTLY on a partitioned
> > table. Contrast that with ReindexRelationConcurrently(), which handles
> > all the indexes on a table in one pass by looping around indexes within
> > each phase.
>
> Rebased over the progress reporting fix (27f5c712b).
>
> I added a list of (intermediate) partitioned tables, rather than looping
> over the list of inheritors again, to save calling rel_get_relkind().
>
> I think this patch is done.
Overall looks good to me. However, I think that using 'partitioned' as
list
of partitioned index oids in DefineIndex() is a bit misleading - we've
just
used it as boolean, specifying if we are dealing with a partitioned
relation.
Right. This is also rebased on 8c852ba9a4 (Allow some exclusion
constraints on partitions).
Hi.
I have some more question.
In the following code (indexcmds.c:1640 and later)
1640 rel = table_open(relationId,
ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
1641 heaprelid = rel->rd_lockInfo.lockRelId;
1642 table_close(rel, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
1643 SET_LOCKTAG_RELATION(heaplocktag,
heaprelid.dbId, heaprelid.relId);
should we release ShareUpdateExclusiveLock before getting session lock
in DefineIndexConcurrentInternal()?
Also we unlock parent table there between reindexing childs in the end
of DefineIndexConcurrentInternal():
1875 /*
1876 * Last thing to do is release the session-level lock on
the parent table.
1877 */
1878 UnlockRelationIdForSession(&heaprelid,
ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
1879 }
Is it safe? Shouldn't we hold session lock on the parent table while
rebuilding child indexes?
--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional
