Re: Block B-Tree concept
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
- Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: Block B-Tree concept
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:30:21 -0400
- Message-id: <8809(dot)1159367421(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> That's probably more easily said than done --- in particular, I don't
>> understand what the committed state after the first transaction would
>> look like.
> I think you build a whole new index named something like ".temp-reindex" and
> then as the last step of the second transaction delete the old idnex and
> rename the new index.
That would require getting exclusive lock on the table.
regards, tom lane
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index