On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On sön, 2012-01-29 at 22:01 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>> Patch now locks index in AccessExclusiveLock in final stage of drop.
>>> Doesn't that defeat the point of doing the CONCURRENTLY business in the
>>> first place?
>> That was my initial reaction.
>> We lock the index in AccessExclusiveLock only once we are certain
>> nobody else is looking at it any more.
>> So its a Kansas City Shuffle, with safe locking in case of people
>> doing strange low level things.
> Yeah, I think this is much safer, and in this version that doesn't
> seem to harm concurrency.
> Given our previous experiences in this area, I wouldn't like to bet my
> life savings on this having no remaining bugs - but if it does, I
> can't find them.
> I'll mark this "Ready for Committer".
I don't think this has been committed - does that mean you've decided
against doing so, or just haven't had the round tuits?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-28 13:57:10|
|Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL return value in after triggers|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-28 13:49:40|
|Subject: Re: archive_keepalive_command|