| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
| Date: | 2012-01-16 19:46:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa5u8M4UAdBJCnUArEz74osJ2T2WDBdFpMZ1Rp3nuTQyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with this, because
>> IIUC when a session sees indisvalid = false, it is supposed to avoid
>> using the index for queries but still make new index entries when a
>> write operation happens - but to drop an index, I think you'd need to
>> get into a state where no one was using the index for anything at all.
>
> ISTM that one would need to set indisready to false instead.
Maybe we should set both to false?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-16 19:52:36 | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-16 19:42:06 | Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"? |