On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Should I go ahead and restore builds on catalogs, and remove those >> comments, on the assumption that your patch will be committed before >> mine? Obviously parallel index builds on catalogs don't matter. OTOH, >> why not? Perhaps it's like the debate around HOT that took place over >> 10 years ago, where Tom insisted that HOT work with catalogs on >> general principle. > > Yes, I think so. If you (or someone else) can review that patch, I'll > go ahead and commit it, and then your patch can treat it as a solved > problem. I'm not really worried about the cycles; the amount of > effort required here is surely very small compared to all of the other > things that have to be done when starting a parallel worker.
Review of your patch: * SerializedReindexState could use some comments. At least a one liner stating its basic purpose. * The "System index reindexing support" comment block could do with a passing acknowledgement of the fact that this is serialized for parallel workers. * Maybe the "Serialize reindex state" comment within InitializeParallelDSM() should instead say something like "Serialize indexes-pending-reindex state". Other than that, looks good to me. It's a simple patch with a clear purpose. -- Peter Geoghegan
