Re: Partial index locks

On 22 March 2014 05:32, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> Is it necessary for a partial index that doesn't include the row to be
>> involved in locking?
>
> Yes. You can't determine whether the index needs to get a new entry
> without examining its metadata, and that's what the lock is mainly about.

I see. Why does this apply to deletes too?

> The only possible alternative would be to take the minimum possible
> lock (AccessShareLock) on each index so its metadata would hold still,
> and then upgrade that to RowExclusiveLock on the one(s) we find need
> insertions. This is not better; it means *more* lock management traffic
> not less, and lock upgrades increase the potential for deadlocks.

Yes, I can see that wouldn't be an improvement.
--
Thom