On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 09:51:12AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Now that we have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, I think reindexdb is going to > gain more popularity. > > Please don't reuse a file name as generic as "parallel.c" -- it's > annoying when navigating source. Maybe conn_parallel.c multiconn.c > connscripts.c admconnection.c ...? > > If your server crashes or is stopped midway during the reindex, you > would have to start again from scratch, and it's tedious (if it's > possible at all) to determine which indexes were missed. I think it > would be useful to have a two-phase mode: in the initial phase reindexdb > computes the list of indexes to be reindexed and saves them into a work > table somewhere. In the second phase, it reads indexes from that table > and processes them, marking them as done in the work table. If the > second phase crashes or is stopped, it can be restarted and consults the > work table. I would keep the work table, as it provides a bit of an > audit trail. It may be important to be able to run even if unable to > create such a work table (because of the <ironic>numerous</> users that > DROP DATABASE postgres). > > Maybe we'd have two flags in the work table for each index: > "reindex requested", "reindex done".
I think we have a similar issue with adding checksums, so let's address with a generic framework and use it for all cases, like vacuumdb too. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
