| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable Indexes |
| Date: | 2009-01-21 20:40:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1232570446.2327.631.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 21:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
> > Early (2005)
> > GIST indexes were very painful in production environments because vacuuming
> > them held locks for a *long* time (IIRC, an hour or so on my database) on
> > the indexes locking out queries. Was that just a shortcoming of the
> > implementation, or was it a side-effect of them not supporting recoverability.
>
> The former.
In the current way of thinking early-GIST would never have been
committed and as a result we would not have PostGIS. Yes, early index
implementations can be bad and they scare the hell out of me. That's
exactly why I want to keep them out of core, so they don't need to be
perfect, they can come with all sorts of health warnings.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-21 20:41:27 | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-21 20:36:44 | Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2)) |