On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> > On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >> I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with this, because >>> >> IIUC when a session sees indisvalid = false, it is supposed to avoid >>> >> using the index for queries but still make new index entries when a >>> >> write operation happens - but to drop an index, I think you'd need to >>> >> get into a state where no one was using the index for anything at all. >>> > >>> > ISTM that one would need to set indisready to false instead. >>> >>> Maybe we should set both to false? >> >> Well, ready = false and valid = true doesn't make any sense. There is >> only just-created -> ready -> valid. We might as well convert that to a >> single "char" column, as you had indicated in your earlier email. But >> that's independent of the proposed patch. > > Sure, but the point is that I think if you want everyone to stop > touching the index, you ought to mark it both not-valid and not-ready, > which the current patch doesn't do.
Thanks for the review and the important observation. I agree that I've changed the wrong column. indisready must be set false. Also agree setting both false makes most sense. Can I just check with you that the only review comment is a one line change? Seems better to make any additional review comments in one go. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers