Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>,"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design
Date: 2007-03-29 19:56:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 13:55 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > > Earlier we were talking about not inserting any HOT tuples until the index
> > > became valid. The goal of having an xid on the index was so we would know
> > > when
> > > we could start doing HOT updates again. That seems like a much lesser cost
> > > than not being able to use the index until all live transactions exit.
> > 
> > 
> > What I am proposing is to keep index unusable for existing transactions.
> > The index is available for all new transactions even if there are unfinished
> > existing transactions. Is that a big problem ? Well, I still need buy-in and
> > review from Tom and others on the design, but it seems workable to me.
> Yes, that seems totally acceptable to me.  As I remember, the index is
> usable by the transaction that created it, and new transactions.  Hard
> to see how someone would have a problem with that.


  Simon Riggs             

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-03-29 20:04:11
Subject: Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-03-29 19:11:02
Subject: Re: problems with plan invalidation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group