| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Date: | 2017-03-10 08:57:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=2CxPpAC6hsE9jVDKLKdtTjVRRQ+9y28W0dDmG_-n23FQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Can you come up with an halfway realistic scenario why an index oid, not
>> a table, constraint, sequence oid, would be relied upon?
>
> Is there an implication for SIREAD locks? Predicate locks on index
> pages include the index OID in the tag.
Ah, yes, but that is covered by a call to
TransferPredicateLocksToHeapRelation() in index_concurrent_set_dead().
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2017-03-10 09:03:13 | Re: Gather Merge |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-03-10 08:57:22 | Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode |