On 2014-11-01 14:45:47 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 11/01/2014 02:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >>Yeah, if we were trying to duplicate the behavior of indisvalid, there'd > >>need to be a way to detect the invalid index at plan time and not use it. > >>But I'm not sure that that's actually an improvement from the user's > >>standpoint: what they'd see is queries suddenly, and silently, performing > >>a lot worse than they expect. An explicit complaint about the necessary > >>REINDEX seems more user-friendly from where I sit. > >A REINDEX is imo unlikely to be acceptable. It takes long (why would you > >bother on a small table?) and locks the relation/indexes. > > > It's a bit of a pity we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
We essentially don't have it because people opined towards the end of 9.4 that a brief (as in two pg_class updates) AccessExclusive lock window makes the feature moot. I still think that's quite heavily disregarding the practial reality. Luckily opinion seems to have shifted a bit again. It'd also be really helpful if REINDEX CONCURRENTLY had a way to only reindex invalid indexes. But that probably is just a smop. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
