| From: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, 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 22:24:27 |
| Message-ID: | C0755D4B.23DBB%wespvp@syntegra.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/25/06 12:24 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that the right solution is to fix UpdateStats and
> setRelhasindex so that they don't use simple_heap_update, but call
> heap_update directly and cope with HeapTupleUpdated (by looping around
> and trying the update from scratch).
Is there a verdict on what can/should/will be done for this? As far as I
can tell from all this, there appears to be no workaround (even kludgy)
other than to not build indexes in parallel - not an attractive option.
If I'm only building two indexes simultaneously, what would happen if I
tried to lock pg_class in the shorter index build transaction? Besides
seeming like a bad idea...
Wes
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-26 22:32:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Enhanced containment selectivity function |
| Previous Message | Taral | 2006-04-26 22:22:21 | Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules |