Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock?
Date: 2009-07-12 00:53:56
Message-ID: 4A593424.3040400@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/11/09 3:50 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Hm. Actually maybe not. What if the index is an expression index and
> the expression includes a function which does an SQL operation? I'm
> not sure how realistic that is since to be a danger that SQL operation
> would have to be an insert, update, or delete which is not just
> bending the rules.

It's not realistic at all. People are only supposed to use IMMUTABLE
functions for experession indexes; if they declare a volatile function
as immutable, then it's their own lookout if they corrupt their data.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-07-12 01:02:19 Re: Maintenance Policy?
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-07-11 23:48:49 Re: WIP: generalized index constraints