Re: Fast index build vs. PITR
От | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fast index build vs. PITR |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D0EE@m0114.s-mxs.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Fast index build vs. PITR (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> I think an actually implementable version of this would be: > > 1. Don't log any index operations at all in WAL. > > 2. When recovering from WAL, restore all the table contents by WAL > replay. (This would of course include the system catalog contents that > describe the indexes.) Then sit there and do a global REINDEX to > rebuild all the indexes. > > This would gain a reduction of some percentage in WAL traffic, at the > cost of a hugely expensive recovery cycle any time you actually needed > to use the WAL. I guess this could be attractive to some installations, > but I'm not sure very many people would want it ... I think only the "global" part of it is not really acceptable. If we had a flag for each index that marks it "inconsistent" reindexing only those that are marked would be great. Could we log a WAL record that basically only marks an index for deferred reindex after WAL recovery ? During WAL replay all records for this index could be ignored (this is not a must because of the post update page images in WAL, the index would still stay inconsistent until reindex of course). I think such a reindex step could also be responsible for those non-btree indexes that don't fully support WAL (gist?). Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: