Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock?
Date: 2009-07-11 04:12:31
Message-ID: 9403.1247285551@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com> writes:
> I would think it would be txns that would be reading that table, but
> I'm thinking it is a bit to aggressive. Am I reading the code wrong
> there? I'm thinking it should be more selective about vxids it
> chooses to block on. I'd expect it to block on vxids touching the
> same table only.

There is no way to know whether a currently active vxid will try to look
at the other table later. We can not just ignore this case...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-07-11 04:19:52 Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold
Previous Message Theo Schlossnagle 2009-07-11 04:02:27 concurrent index builds unneeded lock?