| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ragnar <gnari(at)hive(dot)is>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Online index builds |
| Date: | 2006-12-13 16:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | 6983.1166026366@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-general pgsql-www |
Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
> So an implementation which optimistically builds the new index
> concurrently while holding no lock, and then hopes for the 3rd
> transaction to be able to get the exclusive lock and be able to swap the
> new index in the place of the old index, and error out if it can't - it
> is perfectly acceptable.
It would maybe be acceptable if there were a way to clean up the mess
after a failure, but there wouldn't be ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-12-13 16:38:39 | Re: Online index builds |
| Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-12-13 10:39:10 | Re: Online index builds |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc Evans | 2006-12-13 16:12:59 | Re: dynamic plpgsql question |
| Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2006-12-13 16:08:34 | Re: dynamic plpgsql question |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-12-13 16:38:39 | Re: Online index builds |
| Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-12-13 10:39:10 | Re: Online index builds |