| From: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem |
| Date: | 2006-04-27 02:06:11 |
| Message-ID: | C0759143.B141%wespvp@syntegra.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/26/06 5:42 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, this is probably the best workaround for now. I think we should
> look at making it fully concurrent-safe per upthread comments, but that
> won't be happening in existing release branches.
I changed the index build script such that for each table it builds one
index by itself, then builds the remaining indexes in parallel. This
appears to be stable. I made several runs with no errors. I've got some
more testing to do, then I'll try my big run.
Thanks
Wes
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bob Shearer | 2006-04-27 02:40:12 | pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-04-27 01:25:59 | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 2. |