On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 11:57 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2025-Mar-07, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I tested this, because of a refactoring suggestion [1] and I find that > > it's rather completely broken. > > I think we need significantly more complex scheduling code if we want > this to actually work, possibly even having to hack the ParallelSlot > API some, so that we can inspect which tables have a running reindex and > know not to schedule the next one on it. What we're doing now makes no > sense. > > We should strike this out from the list of features of 17 and revert > this commit. > > If we want this feature in 19, we need another go through the drawing > board. (There's clearly not enough time to do it for 18.)
Yes, I also think we need to revert this from 17. One thing to care about: it might be already used in some user scripts. Should we replace pg_fatal() with some notice and then run in a single job? So, user scripts wouldn't error out. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
