From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2012-12-09 17:29:05 |
Message-ID: | 12548.1355074145@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 8 December 2012 15:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Or we could wait for MVCC catalog access ...
> If there was a published design for that, it would help believe in it more.
> Do you think one exists?
Well, there have been discussion threads about it in the past. I don't
recall whether any insoluble issues were raised. I think the concerns
were mostly about performance, if we start taking many more snapshots
than we have in the past.
The basic idea isn't hard: anytime a catalog scan is requested with
SnapshotNow, replace that with a freshly taken MVCC snapshot. I think
we'd agreed that this could safely be optimized to "only take a new
snapshot if any new heavyweight lock has been acquired since the last
one". But that'll still be a lot of snapshots, and we know the
snapshot-getting code is a bottleneck already. I think the discussions
mostly veered off at this point into how to make snapshots cheaper.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-09 17:48:14 | Re: Review of Row Level Security |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-09 17:21:46 | Re: Review of Row Level Security |