| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem |
| Date: | 2006-04-26 22:42:53 |
| Message-ID: | 21858.1146091373@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> Try running a first index build by itself and then running them in
> parallel.
Yeah, this is probably the best workaround for now. I think we should
look at making it fully concurrent-safe per upthread comments, but that
won't be happening in existing release branches.
Also, the only case where it's a problem is if the first two index
builds finish at almost exactly the same time. It might be possible to
overlap the first two index builds with reasonable safety so long as you
choose indexes with very different sorting costs (eg, integer vs text
columns, different numbers of columns, etc).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-26 22:46:18 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_freespacemap question |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-26 22:41:25 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_freespacemap question |