| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahila(dot)syed(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] |
| Date: | 2019-04-06 04:40:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20190406044042.GA9059@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Apr-05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I've reworded the phases a bit. There was a bit of a mixup of waiting
> for snapshots and waiting for lockers. Perhaps not so important from a
> user's perspective, but at least now it's more consistent with the
> source code comments.
No disagreement with that. Looks reasonable.
I didn't test the patch, but it seems OK in a quick once-over.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-04-06 05:02:43 | Re: gist microvacuum doesn't appear to care about hot standby? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-04-06 04:36:23 | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |