From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:12:48 -0300
Message-ID: <20200325201248.GA11538@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200325195841.gq4hpl25t6pxv3gl@alap3.anarazel.de>
On 2020-Mar-25, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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.
Hmm, that sounds more promising.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, jtc331@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
In-Reply-To: <20200325201248.GA11538@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox