| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| Date: | 2005-12-08 06:04:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20051208060459.GJ16053@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 03:25:58PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> Postgres would have no trouble building an index of the existing data using
> only shared locks. The problem is that any newly inserted (or updated) records
> could be missing from such an index.
>
> To do it you would then have to gather up all those newly inserted records.
> And of course while you're doing that new records could be inserted. And so
> on. There's no guarantee it would ever finish, though I suppose you could
> detect the situation if the size of the new batch wasn't converging to 0 and
> throw an error.
Why throw an error? Just grab a lock that would prevent any new inserts
from occuring. Or at least make that an option.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-08 06:16:42 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-08 05:59:47 | Re: Vertical Partitioning with TOAST |