| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes |
| Date: | 2006-04-25 00:19:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20060425001906.GO64695@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:14:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> > Since this seems to only be an issue due to trying to update pg_class
> > for the table, perhaps CREATE INDEX can just ignore errors there?
>
> Lessee, where would ignoring an error potentially cause the greatest
> damage? I can hardly think of a less critical catalog than pg_class :-(
Sorry, should have been more specific... as I understand it, the update
is just to set pg_class.relpages for the heap, which shouldn't be
critical.
Was the code ever changed so that it won't update relpages if the number
is the same?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-25 00:42:41 | Re: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-25 00:14:33 | Re: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-25 00:25:05 | Re: Additional current timestamp values |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-25 00:14:33 | Re: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes |