Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Subject: Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation
Date: 2006-07-25 20:13:56
Message-ID: 24114.1153858436@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Is there a chance that the locking variant will be replaced by
> non-locking variant,

No, I don't think so. Given that the concurrent form is much slower
(extra table scan) and can't be wrapped into a transaction block,
it'll always be a special option.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-07-25 20:24:58 Re: status of yet another timezone todo item
Previous Message Marko Kreen 2006-07-25 20:05:55 Re: Getting current transaction id