On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with this, because
>> IIUC when a session sees indisvalid = false, it is supposed to avoid
>> using the index for queries but still make new index entries when a
>> write operation happens - but to drop an index, I think you'd need to
>> get into a state where no one was using the index for anything at all.
> ISTM that one would need to set indisready to false instead.
Maybe we should set both to false?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-01-16 19:52:36|
|Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-01-16 19:42:06|
|Subject: Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?|