Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing relation locking overhead)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Cc: Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing relation locking overhead)
Date: 2005-12-06 20:41:28
Message-ID: 16055.1133901688@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> Is it possible to release a lock without commit ?

Yes, but I don't see where that helps you here.

(To do any of this, you'd need to use the same kluge VACUUM does to hold
selected locks across a series of transactions. So in reality you'd
probably be thinking of committing a startup transaction and letting
some of the locks be released by that.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-12-06 20:45:31 Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-12-06 20:38:38 Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing relation locking overhead)