| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| Date: | 2005-12-02 02:45:02 |
| Message-ID: | 438FB52E.60808@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 4. The only reason we need to take relation-level locks on indexes
> at all is to make the world safe for REINDEX being done concurrently
> with read-only accesses to the table (that don't use the index being
> reindexed). If we went back to requiring exclusive lock for reindex we
> could forget all about both #2 and #3. Particularly for updates of
> relations with lots of indexes, this could be a pretty significant win.
> However we'd definitely be giving up something that was seen as a
> feature at one point, so I'm not sold on this idea ... unless someone
> can see a way to reduce the overhead without giving up concurrent
> REINDEX.
Surely in the real world REINDEX is run so rarely compared to all those
other operations it'd be a win...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-02 02:49:21 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-02 02:44:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |