On 2025-Mar-11, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback! I also think that pipelining would be a
> better options, but it's too invasive for backpatching. I've written
> comments for gen_reindex_command() and run_reindex_command(). I'm
> going to push this patch to master and 17
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 1:12 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Mar-09, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > After second thought it's not so hard to fix. The attached patch does
> > it by putting REINDEX commands related to the same table into a single
> > SQL statement. Possibly, that could be bett
On 2025-Mar-09, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> After second thought it's not so hard to fix. The attached patch does
> it by putting REINDEX commands related to the same table into a single
> SQL statement. Possibly, that could be better than revert given we
> need to handle compatibility. What do
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 4:53 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 12:49 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 8:20 PM Álvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2024-Mar-25, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > >
> > > > reindexdb: Add the index-level REINDEX with mu
On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 12:49 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 8:20 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-Mar-25, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >
> > > reindexdb: Add the index-level REINDEX with multiple jobs
> > >
> > > Straight-forward index-level REINDEX is not supported
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 8:20 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2024-Mar-25, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > reindexdb: Add the index-level REINDEX with multiple jobs
> >
> > Straight-forward index-level REINDEX is not supported with multiple jobs as
> > we cannot control the concurrent processing of
On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 11:57 AM Álvaro Herrera 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 actual
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 t
On 2024-Mar-25, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> reindexdb: Add the index-level REINDEX with multiple jobs
>
> Straight-forward index-level REINDEX is not supported with multiple jobs as
> we cannot control the concurrent processing of multiple indexes depending on
> the same relation. Instead, we de
