| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 17:55:16 |
| Message-ID: | 200703291755.l2THtG414263@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-03-29 18:02:36 | Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions |
| Previous Message | August Zajonc | 2007-03-29 17:49:06 | Re: Patch queue concern |