Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date: 2017-03-10 08:36:04
Message-ID: CAEepm=3zS1_FB0zCcLYXtcaLNpX1P+Q6_A8=J-jk64pnFassQg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Can you come up with an halfway realistic scenario why an index oid, not
> a table, constraint, sequence oid, would be relied upon?

Is there an implication for SIREAD locks? Predicate locks on index
pages include the index OID in the tag.

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Michálek 2017-03-10 08:43:30 Re: Other formats in pset like markdown, rst, mediawiki
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-03-10 08:35:39 Re: Parallel Append implementation