Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Munro
Тема Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Дата
Msg-id CAEepm=2CxPpAC6hsE9jVDKLKdtTjVRRQ+9y28W0dDmG_-n23FQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Can you come up with an halfway realistic scenario why an index oid, not
>> a table, constraint, sequence oid, would be relied upon?
>
> Is there an implication for SIREAD locks?  Predicate locks on index
> pages include the index OID in the tag.

Ah, yes, but that is covered by a call to
TransferPredicateLocksToHeapRelation() in index_concurrent_set_dead().

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode
Следующее
От: Andreas Joseph Krogh
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge