From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
Date: | 2006-08-23 08:10:44 |
Message-ID: | 1156320645.2961.3.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-08-23 kell 11:05, kirjutas Hannu Krosing:
> Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-08-22 kell 16:48, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > >> It's fairly clear that we could support concurrent builds of nonunique
> > >> indexes, but is that enough of a use-case to justify it?
> >
> > > I believe there would be. Most PostgreSQL users I run into, develop in
> > > production, which means being able to add an index they forgot when
> > > doing query analysis.
> >
> > True, unique constraints are usually something you should get right to
> > start with. But it'll be annoying if we can do everything BUT that :-(
>
> Maybe we could find a way to build a non-unique index first and then
> convert it to a unique one later, in yet another pass ?
Or even add ALTER INDEX myindex ADD/DROP UNIQUE; command
--
----------------
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia
Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-08-23 08:24:52 | Re: seahorse again failing |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-08-23 08:05:41 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |