From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem Observed in behavior of Create Index Concurrently and Hot Update |
Date: | 2012-11-27 19:10:38 |
Message-ID: | 20121127191037.GD22677@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-11-27 14:08:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I was thinking that the DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY logic needed to be:
>
> 1. Unset indisvalid, commit, wait out all reading transactions.
>
> 2. Unset indisready, commit, wait out all writing transactions.
>
> 3. Unset indislive, commit (with parent table relcache flush),
> wait out all reading-or-writing transactions.
>
> 4. Drop the index.
>
> However, I wonder whether we couldn't combine steps 2 and 3, ie once
> there are no readers of the index go directly to the "dead" state.
> I don't see a need for a period where the index isn't being inserted
> into but is still used for HOT-safety decisions.
I think you're right, that state isn't interesting for anyone.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-27 19:13:43 | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-27 19:08:13 | Re: Problem Observed in behavior of Create Index Concurrently and Hot Update |