Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all?

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all?
Date: 2007-09-13 22:39:37
Message-ID: 87r6l2nqae.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> AFAICS, the whole indcreatexid and validForTxn business is a waste of
> code. By the time CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY is ready to set indisvalid,
> surely any transactions that could see the broken HOT chains are gone.
> There might have been some reason for this contraption before we had
> plan invalidation, but what use is it now?

Argh, sorry, rereading your message I see there are a few details which I
missed which completely change the meaning of it. Ignore my previous mail :(

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-09-13 22:59:09 Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all?
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-09-13 22:37:18 Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all?