| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-11-29 00:30:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20539.1354149001@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2012-11-29 09:10:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> and is going to need a lot of rework as well as more infrastructure
>> like a better MVCC-ish SnapshotNow.
> Which is a major project in itself. I wonder whether my crazy "follow
> updates via t_ctid isn't the actually easier way to get there in the
> short term. On the other hand, a more MVCCish catalog access would be
> awesome.
Yeah, eliminating the race conditions for SnapshotNow scans would be
valuable enough to justify a lot of work --- we could get rid of a
bunch of kluges once we had that, not to mention that Simon's project of
reducing ALTER TABLE lock strength might stand a chance of working.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2012-11-29 01:07:52 | Re: json accessors |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-29 00:23:25 | Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY |