Refactor ReindexStmt and its "concurrent" boolean
Hi all,
$subject has been mentioned a couple of times, including today:
/messages/by-id/20200902010012.GE1489@paquier.xyz
We have a boolean argument in ReindexStmt to control a concurrent
run, and we also have in parallel of that a bitmask to control the
options of the statement, which feels like a duplicate. Attached is a
patch to refactor the whole, adding CONCURRENTLY as a member of the
available options. This simplifies a bit the code.
Any thoughts?
--
Michael
Attachments:
reindex-concurrent-refactor-v1.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload+36-27
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
Hi all,
$subject has been mentioned a couple of times, including today:
/messages/by-id/20200902010012.GE1489@paquier.xyzWe have a boolean argument in ReindexStmt to control a concurrent
run, and we also have in parallel of that a bitmask to control the
options of the statement, which feels like a duplicate. Attached is a
patch to refactor the whole, adding CONCURRENTLY as a member of the
available options. This simplifies a bit the code.Any thoughts?
+1
struct ReindexIndexCallbackState
{
- bool concurrent; /* flag from statement */
+ bool options; /* flag from statement */
Oid locked_table_oid; /* tracks previously locked table */
};
Shouldn't options be an int? The rest of the patch looks good to me.
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
Shouldn't options be an int? The rest of the patch looks good to me.
It should, thanks for looking at it. Let's wait a couple of days and
see if others have any comments. If there are no objections, I'll try
to commit this one.
--
Michael