Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 13336.1393963717@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-03-04 11:40:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't care for (2). I'd like to have lock strength reduction as
>> much as anybody, but it can't come at the price of reduction of
>> reliability.
> I am sorry, but I think this is vastly overstating the scope of the
> pg_dump problem. CREATE INDEX *already* doesn't require a AEL, and the
> amount of problems that has caused in the past is surprisingly low.
CREATE INDEX happens to be okay because pg_dump won't try to dump indexes
it doesn't see in its snapshot, ie the list of indexes to dump is created
client-side. CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, otoh, already did break pg_dump,
and we had to hack things to fix it; see commit
683abc73dff549e94555d4020dae8d02f32ed78b.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: