Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200325195841.gq4hpl25t6pxv3gl@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2020-03-25 16:30:10 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I posted this in November > https://postgr.es/m/20191101203310.GA12239@alvherre.pgsql but I didn't > put time to go through the issues there. Oh, missed that. > I don't know if my approach is exactly what Andres has in mind Not quite. I don't think it's generally correct for CIC to set PROC_IN_VACUUM. I'm doubtful it's the case even just for plain indexes - we don't want rows to be pruned away from under us. I also think we'd want to set such a flag during all of the CIC phases? What I was thinking of was a new flag, with a distinct value from PROC_IN_VACUUM. It'd currently just be specified in the GetCurrentVirtualXIDs() calls in WaitForOlderSnapshots(). That'd avoid needing to wait for other CICs on different relations. Since CIC is not permitted on system tables, and CIC doesn't do DML on normal tables, it seems fairly obviously correct to exclude other CICs. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: