| 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: | 3748.1175203634@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-29 21:48:34 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Previous Message | Carlos Chacon | 2007-03-29 21:23:01 | timing in PostgreSQL |