| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-03-28 01:34:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20130328013406.GA19403@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-03-28 10:18:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Since we call relation_open() with lockmode, ISTM that we should also call
> > relation_close() with the same lockmode instead of NoLock. No?
> >
> Agreed on that.
That doesn't really hold true generally, its often sensible to hold the
lock till the end of the transaction, which is what not specifying a
lock at close implies.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-28 01:35:40 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-03-28 01:18:45 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |