Re: refresh materialized view concurrently

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: refresh materialized view concurrently
Date: 2013-07-03 19:31:44
Message-ID: 23761.1372879904@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> OK. I had seen that no locks were held after the insert and wasn't
> aware that we acquired and then released them for each insert
> within a transaction. On the other hand, we acquire locks on all
> indexes even for a HOT UPDATE which uses a seqscan, and hold those
> until end of transaction. Is there a reason for that?

Sounds dubious to me; although in the HOT code it might be that there's
no convenient place to release the index locks.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2013-07-03 19:34:50 Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
Previous Message Gavin Flower 2013-07-03 19:23:03 Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses