| From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)master(dot)phlo(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Date: | 2007-03-23 13:04:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4603D05D.4000805@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Florian G. Pflug <fgp(at)master(dot)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why exactly can't a SERIALIZABLE transaction use the index it created
>> itself? If you add a pointer to the root of all HOT update chains where
>> either the HEAD is alive, or some tuple is visible to the transaction
>> creating the index, shouldn't this be sufficient for using the index
>> in the creating transaction?
>
> Tuples in the HOT-chain may not share the same index keys with
> respect to the new index being built (they share the same keys for
> all existing indexes though). So we don't know which index key
> to use while building the index.
Ah, of course - thanks for pointing that out.
greetings, Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-23 13:44:32 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-23 12:51:37 | Re: tsearch_core for inclusion |