Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201210181120.26268.andres@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY ("Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bugs in CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 06:12:02 AM Kevin Grittner wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Hmm. The comment is probably better now, but I've been re-checking > > the code, and I think my actual code change is completely wrong. > > Give me a bit to sort this out. > > I'm having trouble seeing a way to make this work without rearranging > the code for concurrent drop to get to a state where it has set > indisvalid = false, made that visible to all processes, and ensured > that all scans of the index are complete -- while indisready is still > true. That is the point where TransferPredicateLocksToHeapRelation() > could be safely called. Then we would need to set indisready = false, > make that visible to all processes, and ensure that all access to the > index is complete. I can't see where it works to set both flags at > the same time. I want to sleep on it to see if I can come up with any > other way, but right now that's the only way I'm seeing to make DROP > INDEX CONCURRENTLY compatible with SERIALIZABLE transactions. :-( In a nearby bug I had to restructure the code that in a way thats similar to this anyway, so that seems fine. Maybe you can fix the bug ontop of the two attached patches? Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: