From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: refresh materialized view concurrently |
Date: | 2013-07-03 14:25:43 |
Message-ID: | 17005.1372861543@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I doubt very much that this is safe. And even if it is safe
>> today, I think it's a bad idea, because we're likely to try to
>> reduce lock levels in the future. Taking no lock on a relation
>> we're opening, even an index, seems certain to be a bad idea.
I'm with Robert on this.
> What we're talking about is taking a look at the index definition
> while the indexed table involved is covered by an ExclusiveLock.
> Why is that more dangerous than inserting entries into an index
> without taking a lock on that index while the indexed table is
> covered by a RowExclusiveLock, as happens on INSERT?
I don't believe that that happens. If it does, it's a bug. Either the
planner or the executor should be taking a lock on each index touched
by a query.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-03 14:32:45 | Re: refresh materialized view concurrently |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-03 14:19:49 | Re: dynamic background workers |