On 2012-11-27 10:18:37 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > I wrote: > > > > Either state of indcheckxmin is valid with all three of these > > combinations, so the specific kluge I was contemplating above doesn't > > work. But there is no valid reason for an index to be in this state: > > > > indisvalid = true, indisready = false > > > > I suggest that to fix this for 9.2, we could abuse these flags by > > defining that combination as meaning "ignore this index completely", > > and having DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY set this state during its final > > wait before removing the index. > > > > > Yeah, this looks much better, given our inability to add a new catalog > column in 9.2. Can we cheat a little though and use a value other than 0 > and 1 for indisvalid or indisready to tell the server to interpret it > differently ? I would assume not, but can't see a reason unless these > values are converted to other types and back to boolean. > > Andres complained about the fact that many callers of RelationGetIndexList > are probably not ready to process invalid or not-yet-ready indexes and > suggested that those changes should be backpatched to even older releases. > But IMO we should do that with a test case that demonstrates that there is > indeed a bug.
I haven't yet looked deeply enough to judge whether there are actually bugs. But I can say that the e.g. the missing indisvalid checks in transformFkeyCheckAttrs makes me pretty uneasy. Vacuum not checking whether indexes are ready isn't nice either. > Also, we should teach RelationGetIndexList to take a flags > argument and filter out indexes that the caller is not interested instead > of every caller doing the checks separately. Given that RelationGetIndexList currently is just returning a cached list I don't see how thats going to work without significant overhead. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers