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

Re: Reducing relation locking overhead

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing relation locking overhead
Date: 2005-12-02 07:14:37
Message-ID: 29250.1133507677@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> It was a *major* new feature that many people were waiting for when Oracle
> finally implemented live CREATE INDEX and REINDEX. The ability to run create
> an index without blocking any operations on a table, even updates, was
> absolutely critical for 24x7 operation.

Well, we're still not in *that* ballpark and I haven't seen any serious
proposals to make us so.  How "absolutely critical" is it really?
Is REINDEX-in-parallel-with-reads-but-not-writes, which is what we
actually have at the moment, an "absolutely critical" facility?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael GlaesemannDate: 2005-12-02 07:33:01
Subject: Buildfarm: Bear, Branch 2?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-02 07:11:26
Subject: Re: Fork-based version of pgbench

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