On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Couldn't we make this enormously simpler and less bug-prone by just >> dictating that --jobs applies only to reindex-table operations?
I had the same argument about the first patch sets actually, but... :) > That would also mean that we'll have to fallback on doing reindex at > table-level, even if we only want to reindex indexes that depends on > glibc. I'm afraid that this will often add a huge penalty. Yes, I would expect that most of the time glibc-sensible indexes are also mixed with other ones which we don't care about here. One advantage of the argument from Tom though is that it is possible to introduce --jobs with minimal steps: 1) Refactor the code for connection slots, without the cell addition 2) Introduce --jobs without INDEX support. In short, the conflict business between indexes is something which could be tackled afterwards and with a separate patch. Parallel indexes at table-level has value in itself, particularly with CONCURRENTLY coming in the picture. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
