| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Date: | 2007-03-21 17:29:54 |
| Message-ID: | 200703211729.l2LHTsi09212@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I am worried that will require CREATE INDEX to wait for a long time.
>
>
>
> Not unless there are long running transactions. We are not waiting
> for the lock, but only for the current transactions to finish.
Waiting for all transactions might take a while, no?
> > Is the pg_index xid idea too complex? It seems to give you the
> > per-tuple index bit, without the restrictions.
>
>
>
> How do we handle HEAP_ONLY tuple cleanup ? If I understood
> the proposal correctly, at the end of the create index, a HEAP_ONLY
> tuple may have pointer from the new index, isn't it ?
Right. You would need vacuum to clean up the HEAP_ONLY tuples. I just
sent an email about those deails. We might have autovacuum check
pg_index and do it automatically.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2007-03-21 17:39:34 | Re: Effects of GUC settings on automatic replans |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-21 17:27:50 | Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes |