Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That was a nasty one, but then again, my recommendation would still be to use `pg_repack` over reindex concurrently because that one also gets you concurrent clustering and that one was not affected by this bug.

I'm not downplaying the issue and index corruption is really bad, but I would wager a guess that admins who do need concurrent reindexing would also be aware of `pg_repack` and would prefer that anyways because of the other benefits it provides.

This is probably why it took 6 months for the issue to be reported and fixed.




What advantage does pg_repack have when you only rebuild an index? Or do you mean it has advantage when pg_repack is run on the entire table?


pg_repack has some significant downsides in its implementation; I question whether it’s really a default over re-indexing concurrently. I’ve certainly not gotten that impression, and we maintain many very large Postgres clusters.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: