Re: Patch: Global Unique Index

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:16:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Assuming that you are inserting into index X, and you've checked
> index Y to find that it has no conflicts, what prevents another
> backend from inserting a conflict into index Y just after you look?
> AIUI the idea is to prevent that by continuing to hold an exclusive
> lock on the whole index Y until you've completed the insertion.
> Perhaps there's a better way to do that, but it's not what was
> described.

As I understood it, you insert into index X and then scan all other
indexes to look for a conflict --- if you find one, you abort with a
unique index conflict. Other index changes do the same.

So, for example, one session inserts into index X and then scans all
other indexes. During the index scan, another session inserts into
index Y, but its scan sees the index X addition and gets a uniqueness
conflict error.

> I actually think that that problem should be soluble with a
> slightly different approach. The thing that feels insoluble
> is that you can't do this without acquiring sufficient locks
> to prevent addition of new partitions while the insertion is
> in progress. That will be expensive in itself, and it will
> turn ATTACH PARTITION into a performance disaster.

Yes, that would require index locks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Embrace your flaws. They make you human, rather than perfect,
which you will never be.