From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
Date: | 2006-08-22 20:01:07 |
Message-ID: | 44EB6283.70101@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>> Wow, that seems pretty unsatisfactory, all the waiting and locking sounds
>> awful.
>
> Yeah, I'm very unhappy. The whole idea may be going down in flames :-(
> It's fairly clear that we could support concurrent builds of nonunique
> indexes, but is that enough of a use-case to justify it?
I believe there would be. Most PostgreSQL users I run into, develop in
production, which means being able to add an index they forgot when
doing query analysis.
Most of the time (I would say >95%) this is not a unique index.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-22 20:10:11 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY view |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-22 19:57:40 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |