| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Goel, Dhruv" <goeldhru(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>,"pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding deadlock errors in CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2019-06-09 15:40:00 |
| Message-ID: | 804334B1-C93F-40E0-99AA-B21EEC05B556@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On June 9, 2019 8:36:37 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>"Goel, Dhruv" <goeldhru(at)amazon(dot)com> writes:
>I think you are mistaken that doing transactional updates in pg_index
>is OK. If memory serves, we rely on xmin of the pg_index row for
>purposes
>such as detecting whether a concurrently-created index is safe to use
>yet.
We could replace that with storing a 64 xid in a normal column nowadays.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Avinash Kumar | 2019-06-09 16:54:05 | Re: Bloom Indexes - bit array length and the total number of bits (or hash functions ?? ) ! |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-09 15:36:37 | Re: Avoiding deadlock errors in CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |