| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Date: | 2007-03-29 19:56:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1175198166.4386.589.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 13:55 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > > Earlier we were talking about not inserting any HOT tuples until the index
> > > became valid. The goal of having an xid on the index was so we would know
> > > when
> > > we could start doing HOT updates again. That seems like a much lesser cost
> > > than not being able to use the index until all live transactions exit.
> >
> >
> > What I am proposing is to keep index unusable for existing transactions.
> > The index is available for all new transactions even if there are unfinished
> > existing transactions. Is that a big problem ? Well, I still need buy-in and
> > review from Tom and others on the design, but it seems workable to me.
>
> Yes, that seems totally acceptable to me. As I remember, the index is
> usable by the transaction that created it, and new transactions. Hard
> to see how someone would have a problem with that.
Agreed.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-29 20:04:11 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-29 19:11:02 | Re: problems with plan invalidation |