From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
Date: | 2007-03-30 18:35:52 |
Message-ID: | 1175279752.4386.832.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Actually, if we are using Serializable Snapshot then there is no chance
> > to replan the query before the transaction completes and the next
> > transaction to start in the session must see the index and hence
> > we must replan. So it would be enough just to associate a transaction
> > id with the cached plan. If this xid is set and our transaction id is
> > different than that, we replan.
>
> Hm. So anytime we reject a potentially useful index as being not valid
> yet, we mark the plan as "only good for this top-level transaction"?
> That seems possibly workable --- in particular it doesn't get more
> complicated as soon as you consider multiple such indexes.
I like that because its specific in dealing with the exact issue we have
- it doesn't rely on many other things happening correctly.
...and it also seems to provide a new route to avoiding the CIC wait.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-03-30 18:49:25 | Re: Proposal: include PL/Proxy into core |
Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-30 18:01:04 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |