| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Batch update of indexes on data loading |
| Date: | 2008-02-29 06:37:48 |
| Message-ID: | 23260.1204267068@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Can we do REINDEX
>>> holding only shared lock on the index?
>>
>> No. When you commit the reindex, the old copy of the index will
>> instantaneously disappear; it will not do for someone to be actively
>> scanning that copy.
> Hmm... Is it ok if the index will *not* instantaneously disappear?
It's not impossible but I really question whether it'd be worth the
complexity. There was something very closely related just yesterday
about whether DROP INDEX has to take exclusive lock ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-02-29 10:02:12 | Re: "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No such file or directory" in a specific combination of transactions with temp tables |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-02-29 06:19:07 | Re: Batch update of indexes on data loading |