Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 23.02.2011 07:20, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Dan Ports wrote:
>>
>>> The obvious solution to me is to just keep the lock on both the
>>> old and new page.
>>
>> That's the creative thinking I was failing to do. Keeping the
>> old lock will generate some false positives, but it will be rare
>> and those don't compromise correctness -- they just carry the
>> cost of starting the transaction over.
>
> Sounds reasonable, but let me throw in another idea while we're at
> it: if there's a lock on the index page we're about to delete, we
> could just choose to not delete it. The next vacuum will pick it
> up. Presumably it will happen rarely, so index bloat won't be an
> issue.
Yeah, that's probably better.
-Kevin