On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:22:28PM +0800, 李杰(慎追) wrote: > However, I found a problem. If there are many partitions, > we may need to handle too many missing index entries when > validate_index(). Especially for the first partition, the time may > have been long and many entries are missing. In this case, why > don't we put the second and third phase together into a transaction > for each partition?
Not sure I am following. In the case of REINDEX, it seems to me that the calls to validate_index() and index_concurrently_build() can happen in a separate transaction for each index, as long as all the calls to index_concurrently_swap() are grouped together in the same transaction to make sure that index partition trees are switched consistently when all entries are swapped from an invalid state to a valid state, because the swapping phase is also when we attach a fresh index to a partition tree. See also index_concurrently_create_copy() where we don't set parentIndexRelid for the lower call to index_create(). It would be good of course to check that when swapping we have the code to handle that for a lot of indexes at once. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
