| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait |
| Date: | 2020-11-13 00:25:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20201113002540.GA1631@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 04:36:32PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Interesting enough, similar discussion happened about vaccumFlags before
> with the same conclusion that theoretically it's fine to update without
> holding the lock, but this assumption could change one day and it's
> better to avoid such risks. Having said that I believe it makes sense to
> continue with locking. Are there any other opinions? I'll try to
> benchmark it in the meantime.
Thanks for planning some benchmarking for this specific patch. I have
to admit that the possibility of switching vacuumFlags to use atomics
is very appealing in the long term, with or without considering this
patch, even if we had better be sure that this patch has no actual
effect on concurrency first if atomics are not used in worst-case
scenarios.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2020-11-13 00:50:30 | RE: Detecting File Damage & Inconsistencies |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-11-12 23:42:23 | Re: Optimising latch signals |