Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Date: 2012-01-08 16:19:48
Message-ID: CA+U5nMLDq_xCVPL5FR5=-0yU5yzzNs8+0RaZ_R2wnUrzxYb2ow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> Not having a freelist at all is probably a simpler way of avoiding the
> lock contention, so I'll happily back that suggestion instead. Patch
> attached, previous patch revoked.

v2 attached with cleanup of some random stuff that crept onto patch.

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
removebufmgrfreelist.v2.patch text/x-patch 3.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-08 16:26:18 Re: bgwriter holds onto file handles of deleted files
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-08 15:53:02 Re: Intermittent regression test failures from index-only plan changes