| 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 23:13:08 |
| Message-ID: | 22737.1146093188@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:
> What about not updating if the tuplecount is within X percent? Would
> that be safe enough to back-port?
Even if you got agreement that it was a good idea (I don't think so
myself), it wouldn't help Wes, at least not for values of X smaller
than 100. Presumably, that first CREATE INDEX is trying to update
reltuples from zero to reality.
Also, the first CREATE INDEX has to set relhasindex = true, and that's
not fuzzy at all.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wes | 2006-04-26 23:19:26 | Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-26 23:07:49 | Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem |