| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CIC and deadlocks |
| Date: | 2007-03-31 13:14:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1175346876.4386.877.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 17:45 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ?
> I saw one with VACUUM today. But I think it can happen with other
> commands like VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, CREATE INDEX
> CONCURRENTLY and so on. These commands conflict on the
> ShareUpdateExclusiveLock held by CIC and hence would wait for
> CIC to release the lock. At the same time, CIC would wait for these
> transactions to complete.
>
> We know that these commands are run in a separate transaction
> and do not do any index fetches or inserts/updates. So in principle
> CIC need not wait for these transactions to complete in any
> of its waits. May be we can skip waits on the transactions that
> are running one of these commands.
Yes, because I proposed it already. :-)
"utility transactions" in - Latest plans for Utilities with HOT
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | korryd | 2007-03-31 13:34:16 | Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, I know) forPQexecf() |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-03-31 12:15:57 | CIC and deadlocks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-03-31 14:09:18 | Re: COPY-able sql log outputs |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-03-31 12:15:57 | CIC and deadlocks |