Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: HOT patch - version 14

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HOT patch - version 14
Date: 2007-08-30 20:08:41
Message-ID: 21836.1188504521@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> If you make the change suggested above, I think you don't need to do
>> things differently in C.I.C.

> It seems to me if you wait out transactions as you come across them you could
> end up waiting a whole lot longer than the way it works now where it waits
> them all out at the end of the first pass.

I think you might have misread that --- I intended to say that C.I.C
could still work the way it does today, not that it would be exactly
like regular CREATE INDEX.  The wait-out business should only be needed
for a regular CREATE INDEX, and in that case there's no cumulative
waiting effect because no new conflicting transactions are coming in.
C.I.C. should be able to fix things up in its second pass instead of
waiting during the first one.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-08-30 21:44:16
Subject: Re: enum types and binary queries
Previous:From: korry.douglasDate: 2007-08-30 19:47:24
Subject: Re: enum types and binary queries

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group