Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13336.1393963717@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2014-03-04 11:40:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't care for (2). I'd like to have lock strength reduction as >> much as anybody, but it can't come at the price of reduction of >> reliability. > I am sorry, but I think this is vastly overstating the scope of the > pg_dump problem. CREATE INDEX *already* doesn't require a AEL, and the > amount of problems that has caused in the past is surprisingly low. CREATE INDEX happens to be okay because pg_dump won't try to dump indexes it doesn't see in its snapshot, ie the list of indexes to dump is created client-side. CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, otoh, already did break pg_dump, and we had to hack things to fix it; see commit 683abc73dff549e94555d4020dae8d02f32ed78b. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: