Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > Earlier we were talking about not inserting any HOT tuples until the index
> > became valid. The goal of having an xid on the index was so we would know
> > when
> > we could start doing HOT updates again. That seems like a much lesser cost
> > than not being able to use the index until all live transactions exit.
> What I am proposing is to keep index unusable for existing transactions.
> The index is available for all new transactions even if there are unfinished
> existing transactions. Is that a big problem ? Well, I still need buy-in and
> review from Tom and others on the design, but it seems workable to me.
Yes, that seems totally acceptable to me. As I remember, the index is
usable by the transaction that created it, and new transactions. Hard
to see how someone would have a problem with that.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2007-03-29 18:02:36|
|Subject: Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions|
|Previous:||From: August Zajonc||Date: 2007-03-29 17:49:06|
|Subject: Re: Patch queue concern|