Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2012-10-17 23:31:31
Message-ID: 12006.1350516691@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> writes:
> To put that another way, it should be done at a time when it is sure
> that no query sees indisvalid = true and no query has yet seen
> indisready = false. Patch attached. Will apply if nobody sees a
> problem with it.

The above statement of the requirement doesn't seem to match what you
put in the comment:

> + * All predicate locks on the index are about to be made invalid. Promote
> + * them to relation locks on the heap. For correctness this must be done
> + * after the index was last seen with indisready = true and before it is
> + * seen with indisvalid = false.

and the comment is rather vaguely worded too (last seen by what?).
Please wordsmith that a bit more.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2012-10-18 00:23:13 Re: Identity projection
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-10-17 23:25:41 Re: Deprecating RULES