From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2012-10-17 23:31:31 |
Message-ID: | 12006.1350516691@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> writes:
> To put that another way, it should be done at a time when it is sure
> that no query sees indisvalid = true and no query has yet seen
> indisready = false. Patch attached. Will apply if nobody sees a
> problem with it.
The above statement of the requirement doesn't seem to match what you
put in the comment:
> + * All predicate locks on the index are about to be made invalid. Promote
> + * them to relation locks on the heap. For correctness this must be done
> + * after the index was last seen with indisready = true and before it is
> + * seen with indisvalid = false.
and the comment is rather vaguely worded too (last seen by what?).
Please wordsmith that a bit more.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-10-18 00:23:13 | Re: Identity projection |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-17 23:25:41 | Re: Deprecating RULES |