| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to prevent vacuum and reindex from deadlocking. |
| Date: | 2003-08-11 15:05:57 |
| Message-ID: | 2587.1060614357@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org> writes:
> So, my guess is that 18735 is the vacuum process (likely vacuum analyze, driven
> from pg_autovacuum), and 188735 is a 'REINDEX INDEX temp_obs_i_loc_index'.
Can you use a "REINDEX TABLE" instead? REINDEX INDEX is problematic
since it first finds/locks the index and then has to find/lock the
table. Everything else (except perhaps DROP INDEX) goes the other way.
If you really want to rebuild only the one index, I think this will work:
begin;
lock table tab;
reindex index ndx;
commit;
I don't see a good system-level solution to this other than changing the
REINDEX syntax to include the table name (cf. CLUSTER).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oscar Estevez Lopez | 2003-08-11 15:10:25 | Re: extract and time zones |
| Previous Message | Robert Creager | 2003-08-11 14:40:17 | Re: How to prevent vacuum and reindex from deadlocking. |