| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| Date: | 2005-12-03 15:15:25 |
| Message-ID: | 87sltadxf6.fsf@stark.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:
> What's worse, once you have excluded writes you have to rescan the entire
> table to be sure you haven't missed anything. So in the scenarios where this
> whole thing is actually interesting, ie enormous tables, you're still
> talking about a fairly long interval with writes locked out. Maybe not as
> long as a complete REINDEX, but long.
I was thinking you would set a flag to disable use of the FSM for
inserts/updates while the reindex was running. So you would know where to find
the new tuples, at the end of the table after the last tuple you read.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-12-03 15:23:06 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| Previous Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-12-03 15:14:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |