| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
| Date: | 2012-02-01 19:39:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJycjsHcu__qC4nxu7nyn2F7eF08hX=z=oHu873nzhiDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On sön, 2012-01-29 at 22:01 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Patch now locks index in AccessExclusiveLock in final stage of drop.
>
> Doesn't that defeat the point of doing the CONCURRENTLY business in the
> first place?
That was my initial reaction.
We lock the index in AccessExclusiveLock only once we are certain
nobody else is looking at it any more.
So its a Kansas City Shuffle, with safe locking in case of people
doing strange low level things.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-02-01 20:02:45 | Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-02-01 19:31:12 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |