Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all?
| От | Gregory Stark | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all? | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 87ir6enpdu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all? (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: Another HOT thought: why do we need indcreatexid at all?
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
"Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > >> AFAICS, the whole indcreatexid and validForTxn business is a waste of >> code. By the time CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY is ready to set indisvalid, >> surely any transactions that could see the broken HOT chains are gone. >> There might have been some reason for this contraption before we had >> plan invalidation, but what use is it now? > > Argh, sorry, rereading your message I see there are a few details which I > missed which completely change the meaning of it. Ignore my previous mail :( In answer to the real question you were actually asking, I believe you're correct that CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY should never need to set indcreatexid. Only regular non-concurrent CREATE INDEX needs to protect against that problem. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: