From: | Paul Hinze <paul(dot)t(dot)hinze(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] Simultaneous index creates on different schemas cause deadlock? |
Date: | 2013-04-26 15:59:52 |
Message-ID: | CAN=EPwKZ+Ae2u=NiYFkynJVForxV4mUbFLa-RWvj-5czA9cMOw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The cause is that each one will wait for all older snapshots to be
> gone --- and it does that before dropping its own snapshot, so that the
> other ones will see it as something to be waited out too.
This makes sense. Thank you for explaining.
> Since we know that C.I.C. executes in its own transaction, and there
> can't be more than one on the same table due to locking, it seems to me
> that it'd be safe to drop our own snapshot before waiting for other
> xacts to end. That is, we could just rearrange the last few steps in
> DefineIndex(), taking care to save snapshot->xmin before we destroy the
> snapshot so that we still have that value to pass to
> GetCurrentVirtualXIDs().
Seems reasonable to me. Looks like a fix landed in master yesterday:
Many thanks to Tom and all the pgsql-hackers for all the work you do!
Paul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Strahinja Kustudić | 2013-04-26 19:22:01 | Re: archive falling behind |
Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2013-04-26 13:55:37 | Re: archive falling behind |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-04-26 16:05:54 | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-04-26 15:40:14 | Re: danger of stats_temp_directory = /dev/shm |