| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2014-11-12 21:11:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ=0NMfMVjemYjO0zWFi8PS3OMZCEsqimcgc34U8UKQeg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> If REINDEX cannot work without an exclusive lock, we should invent some
>> other qualifier, like WITH FEWER LOCKS.
>
> What he said.
But more to the point .... why, precisely, can't this work without an
AccessExclusiveLock? And can't we fix that instead of setting for
something clearly inferior?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-11-12 21:13:53 | Re: Doing better at HINTing an appropriate column within errorMissingColumn() |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-12 21:10:56 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |