| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Correct some doc items due to the REPACK |
| Date: | 2026-08-17 09:53:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwH-Z83cJqz9Jism1+9roUYYSfaQsh_hOYamz7a7E_8OOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:51 PM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> Cool, your version is much better than mine.
Thanks for the review!
> Only on mvcc.sgml I think mine is better because explains other commands and both which have CONCURRENTLY option explained only once.
The wording in v1 could be read as saying that REPACK CONCURRENTLY
never takes an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock. However, as described in the
REPACK docs, it still takes an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock while swapping
the table and index files. So I think v2 is more accurate.
I agree that it would be nice to explain the CONCURRENTLY cases only once,
but REPACK CONCURRENTLY differs from REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY
in that it does take an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock.
Thoughts?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Junwang Zhao | 2026-08-17 09:45:48 | Re: Allow table AMs to define their own reloptions |