| From: | Jeremy Harris <jgh(at)wizmail(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2012-10-06 14:16:37 |
| Message-ID: | 50703D45.9070307@wizmail.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/05/2012 09:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Note that allowing subsequent requests to jump the queue would not be a
> good fix for this; if you do that, it's likely the ex-lock will never be
> granted, at least not till the next system idle time.
Offering that option to the admin sounds like a good thing, since
(as Alvaro points out) the build of the replacement index could take
considerable time but be done without the lock. Then the swap
done in the first quiet period (but without further admin action),
and the drop started.
One size doesn't fit all. It doesn't need to be the only method.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-06 14:59:47 | Re: Add FET to Default and Europe.txt |
| Previous Message | Amit kapila | 2012-10-06 14:06:42 | Re: Re: [WIP] Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |