| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Date: | 2006-08-22 19:57:40 |
| Message-ID: | 11086.1156276660@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Is it not possible to brute force this adding an AM method to insert without
> the uniqueness check?
Hm. Actually there already is a feature of aminsert to allow
suppressing the unique check, but I'm not sure whether using it for
RECENTLY_DEAD tuples helps. Seems like we have to wait to see whether
DELETE_IN_PROGRESS deleters commit in any case.
>> Have I missed anything? This is tricky stuff.
> Wow, that seems pretty unsatisfactory, all the waiting and locking sounds
> awful.
Yeah, I'm very unhappy. The whole idea may be going down in flames :-(
It's fairly clear that we could support concurrent builds of nonunique
indexes, but is that enough of a use-case to justify it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-08-22 20:01:07 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-22 19:52:30 | Re: Queries joining views |