| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Date: | 2007-03-31 03:45:22 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0703302045y47fc6c12n6f7c189ac8ce95f0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/31/07, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >
> > Hm. So anytime we reject a potentially useful index as being not valid
> > yet, we mark the plan as "only good for this top-level transaction"?
> > That seems possibly workable --- in particular it doesn't get more
> > complicated as soon as you consider multiple such indexes.
>
> I like that because its specific in dealing with the exact issue we have
> - it doesn't rely on many other things happening correctly.
Ok. Cool. I would finish this work then.
...and it also seems to provide a new route to avoiding the CIC wait.
Yeah, though I would like to take that up later.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-03-31 04:03:55 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2007-03-31 01:30:27 | Re: Modifying TOAST thresholds |