Re: Avoiding deadlock errors in CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: "'Goel, Dhruv'" <goeldhru(at)amazon(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Avoiding deadlock errors in CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2019-11-25 08:01:33
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:30:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Per the arguments of upthread, storing a 64-bit XID would require a
> catalog change and you cannot backpatch that. I would suggest to keep
> this patch focused on HEAD, and keep it as an improvement of the
> existing features. Concurrent deadlock risks caused by CCI exist
> since the feature came to life.

Marked as returned with feedback per lack of activity and the patch
was waiting on author for a bit more than two weeks.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-25 08:03:09 Re: pglz performance
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-25 07:58:35 Re: Add Change Badges to documentation