Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index
От | Alexander Pyhalov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5f1d2d8f81dcd63f544af5ae61f881f9@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby писал 2022-06-28 21:33: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 06:07:08PM +0300, Alexander Pyhalov wrote: >> I've rebased patches and tried to fix issues I've seen. I've fixed >> reference >> after table_close() in the first patch (can be seen while building >> with >> CPPFLAGS='-DRELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE'). > > Thanks for finding that. > > The patches other than 0001 are more experimental, and need someone to > check if > it's even a good approach to use, so I kept them separate from the > essential > patch. > > Your latest 0005 patch (mark intermediate partitioned indexes as valid) > is > probably fixing a bug in my SKIPVALID patch, right ? I'm not sure > whether the > SKIPVALID patch should be merged into 0001, and I've been awaiting > feedback on > the main patch before handling progress reporting. Hi. I think it's more about fixing ReindexPartitions-to-set-indisvalid patch, as we also should mark intermediate indexes as valid when reindex succeeds. > Sorry for not responding sooner. The patch saw no activity for ~11 > months so I > wasn't prepared to pick it up in March, at least not without guidance > from a > committer. > > Would you want to take over this patch ? I wrote it following > someone's > question, but don't expect that I'd use the feature myself. I can help > review > it or try to clarify the organization of my existing patches (but still > haven't > managed to work my way through your amendments to my patches). > Yes, I'm glad to work on the patches, as this for us this is a very important feature. -- Best regards, Alexander Pyhalov, Postgres Professional
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: