From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Problem Observed in behavior of Create Index Concurrently and Hot Update |
Date: | 2012-11-27 17:11:44 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaP=HLqGqRE8n_TeLGbMsPfhwhvTHkcKkupO-Lg9wm0xA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The point of not wanting to open the index NoLock (and for that matter
> of having DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY take AccessExclusiveLock once it
> thinks nobody is touching the index) is to make sure that if somehow
> somebody is touching the index anyway, they don't see the index's
> catalog entries as corrupt. They'll either all be there or all not.
> It's only a belt-and-suspenders safety measure, but I don't want to
> give it up.
+1. There's a whole crapload of commits that I did for 9.2 with
commit messages like "improve concurrent DDL in case XYZ". A lot of
that had to do with fixing cases where we were examining system
catalogs in unsafe ways before locks had been taken. I didn't manage
to fix them all, unfortunately, but it's significantly better than it
used to be, and I'd really like it if we could try not to go
backwards.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-27 17:19:43 | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-11-27 17:07:54 | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |