| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore dependencies |
| Date: | 2009-04-10 22:57:16 |
| Message-ID: | 3003.1239404236@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> What you're missing is that we need to compare the lockdeps of each item
> (i.e. both the candidate item and the running item) with all the deps
> (not just the lockdeps) of the other item. If neither item has any
> lockdeps there will be no conflict. This will allow concurrent index
> creation, since neither item will have any lockdeps. But it will prevent
> us selecting a create index that conflicts with a running FK creation or
> vice versa.
Oh, I see, you're using the deps as a proxy for the shared locks the
operation will acquire. Yeah, that might work. Seems like it's nearly
a one-liner fix, too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-04-10 23:26:53 | Re: pg_restore dependencies |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-04-10 22:44:12 | Re: pg_restore dependencies |