| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Date: | 2007-03-30 16:42:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20859.1175272966@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> What I am suggesting is to use ActiveSnapshot (actually
> Florian's idea) to decide whether the transaction that created
> index was still running when we started. Isn't it the case that
> some snapshot will be "active" when we plan ?
I do not think you can assume that the plan won't be used later with
some older snapshot. Consider recursive plpgsql functions for a
counterexample: the inner occurrence might be the first to arrive at
a given line of the function, hence the first to plan it, yet when we
return to the outer instance we might revert to an older snapshot.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-30 16:43:55 | Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-30 16:41:01 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |