| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| 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 16:59:56 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0703210959t5b0314cbk5d34738758c41911@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
>
> 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 ?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Browne | 2007-03-21 17:01:03 | Re: SoC Ideas for people looking for projects |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-03-21 16:56:25 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |