| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Markus Bertheau" <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Batch update of indexes on data loading |
| Date: | 2008-02-29 05:05:45 |
| Message-ID: | 22245.1204261545@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Markus Bertheau" <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com> writes:
> 2008/2/29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> No. When you commit the reindex, the old copy of the index will
>> instantaneously disappear; it will not do for someone to be actively
>> scanning that copy.
> Can a shared lock be taken at first, and when the new index is ready,
> in order to delete the old index, elevate that lock to an exclusive
> one?
You could try, but lock upgrades are generally a recipe for increasing
your risk of deadlock failure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2008-02-29 05:24:59 | Re: UUID data format 4x-4x-4x-4x-4x-4x-4x-4x |
| Previous Message | Markus Bertheau | 2008-02-29 04:40:41 | Re: Batch update of indexes on data loading |