On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I will look at it when I get the time.
> On 03/31/2017 08:27 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> - Do a per-index rebuild and not a per-relation rebuild for concurrent
>> indexing. Doing a per-relation reindex has the disadvantage that many
>> objects need to be created at the same time, and in the case of
>> REINDEX CONCURRENTLY time of the operation is not what matters, it is
>> how intrusive the operation is. Relations with many indexes would also
>> result in much object locks taken at each step.
> I am personally worried about the amount time spent waiting for long running
> transactions if you reindex per index rather than per relation. Because when
> you for one index wait on long running transactions nothing prevents new
> long transaction from starting, which we will have to wait for while
> reindexing the next index. If your database has many long running
> transactions more time will be spent waiting than the time spent working.

Yup, I am not saying that one approach or the other are bad, both are
worth considering. That's a deal between waiting and manual potential
cleanup in the event of a failure.

> and doing the REINDEX per relation allows for flexibility
> since people can still explicitly reindex per index of they want to.

You have a point here.

I am marking this patch as returned with feedback, this won't get in
PG10. If I am freed from the SCRAM-related open items I'll try to give
another shot at implementing this feature before the first CF of PG11.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to