Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 11086.1156276660@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Is it not possible to brute force this adding an AM method to insert without
> the uniqueness check?
Hm. Actually there already is a feature of aminsert to allow
suppressing the unique check, but I'm not sure whether using it for
RECENTLY_DEAD tuples helps. Seems like we have to wait to see whether
DELETE_IN_PROGRESS deleters commit in any case.
>> Have I missed anything? This is tricky stuff.
> Wow, that seems pretty unsatisfactory, all the waiting and locking sounds
> awful.
Yeah, I'm very unhappy. The whole idea may be going down in flames :-(
It's fairly clear that we could support concurrent builds of nonunique
indexes, but is that enough of a use-case to justify it?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: