Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing relation locking overhead)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Cc: Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing relation locking overhead)
Date: 2005-12-06 20:38:38
Message-ID: 16021.1133901518@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> What I have in mind would be something like this to get both SNAP2 and
> commit between any transactions:

> LOOP:
> LOCK AGAINST STARTING NEW TRANSACTIONS

I can hardly credit that "let's block startup of ALL new transactions"
is a more desirable restriction than "let's block writers to the table
we wish to reindex".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-12-06 20:41:28 Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing relation locking overhead)
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-12-06 20:36:49 Slow email caught in the act