Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
Date: 2006-08-23 16:28:23
Message-ID: 87zmdvxvq0.fsf@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> I think that's OK, but the whole idea of using an MVCC snap in phase 2
> doesn't work on closer inspection. The problem is still the same one
> that you need to take (at least) share lock on each tuple you insert
> into the index. Telling aminsert to check uniqueness implicitly assumes
> the new tuple is live, and without any lock on the tuple you can't
> promise that.

No wait. It's still "live" according to my snapshot. How could it be possible
for a single snapshot to see two different versions of the same tuple as live?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2006-08-23 16:29:41 Re: Replication
Previous Message Markus Schiltknecht 2006-08-23 16:23:23 Re: Replication