| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: refresh materialized view concurrently |
| Date: | 2013-07-02 14:56:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaSzzJdvB6oBYC3no=rf57Tw1_28BGeZbH4+9o=-a10qA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Other than these, I've found index is opened with NoLock, relying on
> ExclusiveLock of parent matview, and ALTER INDEX SET TABLESPACE or something
> similar can run concurrently, but it is presumably safe. DROP INDEX,
> REINDEX would be blocked by the ExclusiveLock.
I doubt very much that this is safe. And even if it is safe today, I
think it's a bad idea, because we're likely to try to reduce lock
levels in the future. Taking no lock on a relation we're opening,
even an index, seems certain to be a bad idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-02 15:00:51 | Re: Large object + FREEZE? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-07-02 14:54:24 | Re: signed vs. unsigned in plpy_procedure.c |