Re: Still more REINDEX fun

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Still more REINDEX fun
Date: 2011-04-20 20:21:33
Message-ID: BANLkTi=FarX3XGke1tRg+yLfPd=PRtTyaA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> It's still true though that you have to be REINDEXing system catalogs to
> be at risk, else you shouldn't be seeing any IN_PROGRESS tuples.

So the fix seems to be that we make REINDEX on a system catalog lock
the whole catalog table.

Anything else seems likely to be heavily invasive, or at best
difficult to prove it is bug free.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-04-20 20:22:33 Re: pl/python tracebacks v2
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-04-20 20:14:17 Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers