From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, brian(dot)johnson(at)emolhealth(dot)com, aaron(dot)thul(at)emolhealth(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: 9.4 and reproducible "ERROR: could not read block 0 in file..." |
Date: | 2015-04-02 00:50:25 |
Message-ID: | 20150402005025.GA29404@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 03:11:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> So there are two separate bugs/symptoms here, but I think we can
> fix both of them with one change: we need the new index to appear
> invalid for queries/updates until we're done building it. We
> could implement that (in 9.2 and later) by creating the pg_index
> row with indislive = false and updating it to true after the build
> completes; but that's a tad annoying since it means every index build
> leaves a dead pg_index row behind. (Unless we do the update in-place,
> which I think would work but it's still pretty ugly.)
>
> Or we could hack things up by having RelationGetIndexList consult some
> internal-to-the-backend state so that it knows which index builds are
> in-progress and leaves those indexes out of the indexlist. That seems
> a bit messy too, but it would avoid one catalog update, and would stand
> a better chance of being back-patchable to before 9.2.
Uh, where are we on this?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-04-02 00:56:16 | Re: BUG #8470: 9.3 locking/subtransaction performance regression |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-04-01 21:07:55 | Re: BUG #12939: GRANT ALL ON ALL SEQUENCES doesn't work for sequences not yet existing |