Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design
Date: 2007-03-29 21:27:14
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> ISTM that the run-another-transaction-afterwards idea is the only one
> that does everything I think we need. I really do wish we could put in a
> wait, like CIC, but I just think it will break existing programs.

Actually, there's a showstopper objection to that: plain CREATE INDEX
has to be able to run within a larger transaction.  (To do otherwise
breaks "pg_dump --single-transaction", just for starters.)  This means
it can *not* commit partway through.

Back to the drawing board :-(

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Florian G. PflugDate: 2007-03-29 21:48:34
Subject: Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design
Previous:From: Carlos ChaconDate: 2007-03-29 21:23:01
Subject: timing in PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group