On 2013-10-02 13:16:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Each patch applied with its parents compiles, has no warnings AFAIK
> and passes regression/isolation tests. Working on 0004 by the end of
> the CF seems out of the way IMO, so I'd suggest focusing on 0002 and
> 0003 now, and I can put some tim
Marking this patch as "returned with feedback", I will not be able to
work on that by the 15th of October. It would have been great to get
the infrastructure patches 0002 and 0003 committed to minimize the
work on the core patch, but well it is not the case.
I am attaching as well a patch fixing s
Michael Paquier escribió:
> Btw, taking the problem from another viewpoint... This feature has now
> 3 patches, the 2 first patches doing only code refactoring. Could it
> be possible to have a look at those ones first? Straight-forward
> things should go first, simplifying the core feature evalua
On 2013-09-27 05:41:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In this case, doing a call to WaitForOldSnapshots after the swap phase
> is enough. It was included in past versions of the patch but removed
> in the last 2 versions.
I don't think it is. I really, really suggest following the protocol
used b
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 20:47:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013-09-26 20:40:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andres Freund
>> >> wrote:
>
On 2013-09-26 20:47:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-26 20:40:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 2013-09-26 12:13:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> >
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 20:40:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013-09-26 12:13:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >> > 2) I don't think the drop algorithm used now is correct. Your
On 2013-09-26 20:40:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-26 12:13:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> > 2) I don't think the drop algorithm used now is correct. Your
> >> > index_concurrent_set_dead() sets both indisvalid = false
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 12:13:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > 2) I don't think the drop algorithm used now is correct. Your
>> > index_concurrent_set_dead() sets both indisvalid = false and indislive =
>> > false at the same time. It does so afte
On 2013-09-26 12:13:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > 2) I don't think the drop algorithm used now is correct. Your
> > index_concurrent_set_dead() sets both indisvalid = false and indislive =
> > false at the same time. It does so after doing a WaitForVirtualLocks() -
> > but that's not suffici
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 1. We're not in a huge hurry to ensure that sinval notifications are
>> delivered in a timely fashion. We know that sinval resets are bad, so
>> if a backend is getting close to needing a sinval reset, we kick it in
>> an attempt to get it
On 2013-09-17 16:34:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > Actually, the shared inval code already has that knowledge, doesn't it?
> > ISTM all we'd need is have a "sequence number" of SI entries which has
> > to be queryable. Then one can simp
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-29 10:39:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I have been of the opinion for some time now that the
>> shared-invalidation code is not a particularly good design for much of
>> what we need. Waiting for an old snapshot is often a prox
Hi,
Looking at this version of the patch now:
1) comment for "Phase 4 of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY" ends with an incomplete
sentence.
2) I don't think the drop algorithm used now is correct. Your
index_concurrent_set_dead() sets both indisvalid = false and indislive =
false at the same time. It does s
On 2013-08-29 10:39:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have been of the opinion for some time now that the
> shared-invalidation code is not a particularly good design for much of
> what we need. Waiting for an old snapshot is often a proxy for
> waiting long enough that we can be sure every other b
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> During swap phase, process was waiting for transactions with older
>> snapshots than the one taken by transaction doing the swap as they
>> might hold the old index information. I think that we can get rid of
>> it thanks to the MVCC snapsho
On 2013-08-28 13:58:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > On 2013-08-27 15:34:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> I have been working a little bit more on this patch for the next
> >> commit fest. Compared to the previous version, I have
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-27 15:34:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I have been working a little bit more on this patch for the next
>> commit fest. Compared to the previous version, I have removed the part
>> of the code where process running REINDEX C
On 2013-08-27 15:34:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have been working a little bit more on this patch for the next
> commit fest. Compared to the previous version, I have removed the part
> of the code where process running REINDEX CONCURRENTLY was waiting for
> transactions holding a snapshot
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I am resending the patches after Fujii-san noticed a bug allowing to
> even drop valid toast indexes with the latest code... While looking at
> that, I found a couple of other bugs:
> - two bugs, now fixed, with the code path added in table
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed some errors in the comments of the patch committed. Please
> find attached a patch to correct that.
Committed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
Hi,
I noticed some errors in the comments of the patch committed. Please
find attached a patch to correct that.
Regards,
--
Michael
20130704_reltoastidxid_comments.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subsc
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2013-07-04 02:32:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to fetch the toast index oid in the query
>>
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2013-07-04 02:32:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> > Wouldn't it make more sense to fetch the toast index oid in the query
>>> > ontop instead of making a query for every relation?
>
On 2013-07-04 02:32:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to fetch the toast index oid in the query
> > ontop instead of making a query for every relation?
> With something like a CASE condition in the upper query for
> reltoastrelid? This code path is not only taken by i
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-07-03 10:03:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> index 9ee9ea2..23e0373 100644
>> --- a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c
>> +++ b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c
>> @@ -2778,10 +2778,9 @@ binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids(Archive *fout,
>> PQE
On 2013-07-03 10:03:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +static int
> +toast_open_indexes(Relation toastrel,
> +LOCKMODE lock,
> +Relation **toastidxs,
> +int *num_indexes)
> + /*
> + * Free inde
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Why did you remove the check of indisvalid from the --binary-upgrade SQL?
>> Without this check, if there is the invalid toast index, more than one rows
>> are
>> returned and ExecuteSq
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Thanks for updating the patch!
> And thanks for taking time to look at that. I updated the patch
> according to your comments, except for the VACUUM FULL problem. Please
> see patch at
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please find attached an updated version of the patch removing
>> reltoastidxid (with and w/o context diffs), patch fixing the vacuum
>> full issue. With this fix, all the
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please find attached an updated version of the patch removing
> reltoastidxid (with and w/o context diffs), patch fixing the vacuum
> full issue. With this fix, all the comments are addressed.
Thanks for updating the patch!
I h
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-28 16:30:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > When I ran VACUUM FULL, I got the following error.
>> >
>> > ERROR: attempt to apply a mapping to unmapped relation 16404
>> > STATEMENT: vacuum full;
>> This can be reproduced when
On 2013-06-28 16:30:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > When I ran VACUUM FULL, I got the following error.
> >
> > ERROR: attempt to apply a mapping to unmapped relation 16404
> > STATEMENT: vacuum full;
> This can be reproduced when doing a vacuum full on pg_proc,
> pg_shdescription or pg_db_ro
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Patch updated according to comments.
Thanks for updating the patch!
When I ran VACUUM FULL, I got the following error.
ERROR: attempt to apply a mapping to unmapped relation 16404
STATEMENT: vacuum full;
Could you let me clear why toa
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-24 09:57:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>> > Otherwise I think there's not really much left to be done. Fujii?
>>
>> Well, other than the fact that we've not got MVCC catalog scans yet.
>
> That statement was
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-24 07:46:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > Compile error ;)
>> It looks like filterdiff did not work correctly when generating the
>> latest patch with context diffs, I ca
On 2013-06-24 09:57:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Otherwise I think there's not really much left to be done. Fujii?
>
> Well, other than the fact that we've not got MVCC catalog scans yet.
That statement was only about about the patch dealing the removal of
reltoastidxid.
Andres Freund writes:
> Otherwise I think there's not really much left to be done. Fujii?
Well, other than the fact that we've not got MVCC catalog scans yet.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
On 2013-06-24 07:46:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Compile error ;)
> It looks like filterdiff did not work correctly when generating the
> latest patch with context diffs, I cannot apply it cleanly wither.
> This is perhaps due to a wron
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> OK. Please find an updated patch for the toast part.
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
>> On 2013-06-22 22:45:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Andres Freund
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> An updated patch for the toast part is attached.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Her
Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2013-06-22 22:45:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > And I imagine that you have the same problem even with
> > RelationGetIndexList, not only RelationGetIndexListIfInvalid, because
> > this would appear as long as you try to open more than 1 index with an
> > index l
On 2013-06-22 22:45:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > On 2013-06-22 12:50:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> By looking at the comments of RelationGetIndexList:relcache.c,
> >> actually the method of the patch is correct because in
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-22 12:50:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > Hm. Looking at how this is currently used - I am afraid it's not
>> > correct... the reason RelationGetIndexList() retur
On 2013-06-22 12:50:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > Hm. Looking at how this is currently used - I am afraid it's not
> > correct... the reason RelationGetIndexList() returns a copy is that
> > cache invalidations will throw away that
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm. Looking at how this is currently used - I am afraid it's not
> correct... the reason RelationGetIndexList() returns a copy is that
> cache invalidations will throw away that list. And you do index_open()
> while iterating over it which w
OK let's finalize this patch first. I'll try to send an updated patch
within today.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 20:54:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michae
On 2013-06-21 20:54:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> >> @@ -1529,12 +1570,13 @@ finish_heap_swap(Oid OIDOldHeap, Oid OIDNewHeap,
> >> > Is it actually possible to get here with mul
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >> /* Clean up. */
>> >> heap_freetuple(reltup1);
>> >> @@ -1529,12 +1570,13 @@ finish_heap_swap(Oid OIDOldHeap, Oid OIDNewHeap,
>> >> if (OidIsValid(newrel->rd
On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please find an updated patch. The regression test rules has been
> updated, and all the comments are addressed.
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2013-06-18 10:53:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> An updated patch for the toast part is attached.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Here are the review comments of the removal_of_reltoastidxid patch.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-06-18 11:35:10 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Going to do some performance tests now.
>
> Ok, so ran the worst case load I could think of and didn't notice
> any relevant performance changes.
>
> The test I ran was:
>
> CREATE
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> An updated patch for the toast part is attached.
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Here are the review comments of the removal_of_reltoastidxid patch.
>> I've not completed the review yet, but I'd like to post the
Hi,
On 2013-06-18 11:35:10 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> Going to do some performance tests now.
Ok, so ran the worst case load I could think of and didn't notice
any relevant performance changes.
The test I ran was:
CREATE TABLE test_toast(id serial primary key, data text);
ALTER TABLE test_to
Hi,
On 2013-06-18 10:53:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> diff --git a/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c b/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c
> index c381f11..3a6342c 100644
> --- a/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c
> +++ b/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c
> @@ -321,12 +321,17 @@ get_rel_infos(ClusterInfo *cluster, DbInfo *dbin
On 2013-06-17 13:46:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 01:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> >> PS: Josh, minor thing, but could you please not trim the CC list, at
> >> least when I am on it?
> >
> > Yes, it's annoying.
>
> I also get private comments from peo
On 06/17/2013 01:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> PS: Josh, minor thing, but could you please not trim the CC list, at
>> least when I am on it?
>
> Yes, it's annoying.
I also get private comments from people who don't want me to cc them
when they are already on the list.
Andres Freund wrote:
> PS: Josh, minor thing, but could you please not trim the CC list, at
> least when I am on it?
Yes, it's annoying.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing li
On 2013-06-17 12:52:36 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Well, it can do lots stuff that DROP/CREATE CONCURRENTLY can't:
> > * reindex primary keys
> > * reindex keys referenced by foreign keys
> > * reindex exclusion constraints
> > * reindex toast tables
> > * do all that for a whole database
> >
> Well, it can do lots stuff that DROP/CREATE CONCURRENTLY can't:
> * reindex primary keys
> * reindex keys referenced by foreign keys
> * reindex exclusion constraints
> * reindex toast tables
> * do all that for a whole database
> so I don't think that comparison is fair. Having it would have ma
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-06-17 04:20:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
>> > wrote:
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > Please find attached the la
On 2013-06-17 11:03:35 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/17/13 9:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Without getting rid of the AccessExclusiveLock, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is
> >> not really concurrent, at least not concurrent to the standard set by
> >> CREATE and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
> >
> >
On 6/17/13 9:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Without getting rid of the AccessExclusiveLock, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is
>> not really concurrent, at least not concurrent to the standard set by
>> CREATE and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
>
> Well, it still does the main body of work in a concurrent fashion,
On 2013-06-17 09:12:12 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/17/13 8:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > As mentionned by Andres, the only thing that the MVCC catalog patch can
> > improve here
> > is the index swap phase (index_concurrent_swap:index.c) where the
> > relfilenode of the
> > old and ne
On 6/17/13 8:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As mentionned by Andres, the only thing that the MVCC catalog patch can
> improve here
> is the index swap phase (index_concurrent_swap:index.c) where the
> relfilenode of the
> old and new indexes are exchanged. Now an AccessExclusiveLock is taken
> on
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-17 04:20:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Please find attached the latest versions of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for
> the 1st
> > > commit fest of 9.4
On 2013-06-17 04:20:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Please find attached the latest versions of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for the 1st
> > commit fest of 9.4:
> > - 20130606_1_remove_reltoastidxid_v9.patch, removing reltoastidxi
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please find attached the latest versions of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for the 1st
> commit fest of 9.4:
> - 20130606_1_remove_reltoastidxid_v9.patch, removing reltoastidxid, to allow
> a toast relation to have multiple indexes running
Hi,
I moved this patch to the next commit fest.
Thanks,
--
Michael
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-03-28 10:18:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Since we call relation_open() with lockmode, ISTM that we should also call
>> > relation_close() with the same lockmode instead o
On 2013-03-19 08:57:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> > > I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
> > > 1) reltoastidxid removal:
> >
> > > - Fix a bug wi
On 2013-03-28 10:18:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Since we call relation_open() with lockmode, ISTM that we should also call
> > relation_close() with the same lockmode instead of NoLock. No?
> >
> Agreed on that.
That doesn't really hold
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> ISTM you failed to make the patches from your repository.
>> 20130323_1_toastindex_v7.patch contains all the changes of
>> 20130323_2_reindex_concurrently_v25.patch
>
> Oops, so
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-03-22 07:38:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > Is someone planning to provide additional feedback about this patch at
>> > some
>> > point?
>>
>> Yes, now that
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-03-22 07:38:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Is someone planning to provide additional feedback about this patch at
> some
> > point?
>
> Yes, now that I have returned from my holidays - or well, am returning
> from them, I do pl
On 2013-03-22 07:38:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Is someone planning to provide additional feedback about this patch at some
> point?
Yes, now that I have returned from my holidays - or well, am returning
from them, I do plan to. But it should probably get some implementation
level review fr
Is someone planning to provide additional feedback about this patch at some
point?
Thanks,
--
Michael
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > Please find attached the patches wanted:
>> > - 20130317_dump_only_valid_index.patch, a 1-line patch that makes
>>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
> > 1) reltoastidxid removal:
>
> > - Fix a bug with pg_dump and binary upgrade. One valid index is necessary
> > for a
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > Please find attached the patches wanted:
> > - 20130317_dump_only_valid_index.patch, a 1-line patch that makes pg_dump
> > not take a dump of invalid indexes. This patch can be bac
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
> 1) reltoastidxid removal:
> - Fix a bug with pg_dump and binary upgrade. One valid index is necessary
> for a given toast relation.
Is this bugfix related to the following?
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Please find attached the patches wanted:
> - 20130317_dump_only_valid_index.patch, a 1-line patch that makes pg_dump
> not take a dump of invalid indexes. This patch can be backpatched to 9.0.
Don't indisready and indislive need to be chec
Please find attached the patches wanted:
- 20130317_reindexdb_concurrently.patch, adding an option -c/--concurrently
to reindexdb
Note that I added an error inside reindexdb for options "-s -c" as REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY does not support SYSTEM.
- 20130317_dump_only_valid_index.patch, a 1-line patch t
On 2013/03/17, at 0:35, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
>
> I found pg_dump dumps even the invalid index. But pg_dump should
> ignore the invalid index?
> This problem exists even witho
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
I found pg_dump dumps even the invalid index. But pg_dump should
ignore the invalid index?
This problem exists even without REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch. So we might need to
impleme
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> > Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> - "SELECT
> reltoastidxid "
> - "FROM
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for updating the patch!
- "SELECT reltoastidxid
"
- "FROM info_rels i
JOIN pg_catalog.pg_class c "
-
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why do you want to temporarily mark it as valid? I don't see any
> requirement that it is set to that during validate_index() (which imo is
> badly named, but...).
> I'd just set it to valid in the same transaction that does the swap.
+1. I c
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> +
>> + Concurrent indexes based on a PRIMARY KEY or an
>>
>> + EXCLUSION constraint need to be dropped with ALTER
>> TABLE
>>
>> Typo: s/EXCLUSION/EXCLUDE
>
> Tha
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > The strange think about "hoge_pkey_cct_cct" is that it seems to imply
>> > that an invalid index was reindexed concu
On 2013-03-07 09:58:58 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> > >> +The recommended recovery method in such cases is to drop the
> >> > > concurrent
> >> > > >> +index and try again to perform REINDEX
> >> CONCURRENTLY.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If an invalid index depends on the constraint like
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The strange think about "hoge_pkey_cct_cct" is that it seems to imply
> that an invalid index was reindexed concurrently?
>
> But I don't see how it could happen either. Fujii, can you reproduce it?
Yes, I can even with the latest version of
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> On 2013-03-07 05:26:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Fujii Masao
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Andres Freund > >
>> >
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 05:26:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Andres Freund
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Indexes:
> > > >> "hoge_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree
On 2013-03-07 05:26:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Andres Freund
> > wrote:
> > >> Indexes:
> > >> "hoge_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i)
> > >> "hoge_pkey_cct" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i) INVALID
> > >>
On 2013-03-07 02:34:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Indexes:
> >> "hoge_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i)
> >> "hoge_pkey_cct" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i) INVALID
> >> "hoge_pkey_cct1" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i) INVALID
> >> "hoge_pkey_cct
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > OK. Patches updated... Please see attached.
>
> I found odd behavior. After I made REINDEX CONCURRENTLY fail twice,
> I found that the index which was not marked as INVALID remained
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Indexes:
>> "hoge_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i)
>> "hoge_pkey_cct" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i) INVALID
>> "hoge_pkey_cct1" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i) INVALID
>> "hoge_pkey_cct_cct" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i)
>
> Huh, why did that go through
On 2013-03-07 02:09:49 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > OK. Patches updated... Please see attached.
>
> I found odd behavior. After I made REINDEX CONCURRENTLY fail twice,
> I found that the index which was not marked as INVALID remained une
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> OK. Patches updated... Please see attached.
I found odd behavior. After I made REINDEX CONCURRENTLY fail twice,
I found that the index which was not marked as INVALID remained unexpectedly.
=# CREATE TABLE hoge (i int primary key);
CREATE
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
