DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=D5UhgG50mS43EhxXVtmqKxL1QxCeWj3NXh09L2vOGkWDxGICq6ZSeem/d+cwe6ut0D
	WaMr7zRFYAUJor38wLitHnoJav8uPv9I7aGPWMxf0mACTAmpoQFlwVbhpA0zDOVoT4N+
	fmDsbYJdq3+BHDbM6gy1xpsOeUjPVBZC1JN6Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6692.1302547143@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <DD8709CB-474F-4002-B555-1ED974371364@ruprecht.org>
	<4325.1302369004@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<DBEFE6AF-E8CE-4508-A8C3-A0E5E0987EFE@ruprecht.org>
	<4DA2679D.5000207@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<BANLkTinTWXOKd6QunwBag1AJypYTVjYxRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA2B0A4.6050605@2ndquadrant.com>
	<BANLkTin+9nd9xJ4u11C23ENCJgiteKG-Zw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6692.1302547143@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:39:49 -0600
Message-ID: <BANLkTimw0O0aLgsZ1jM4fa=CyDHM5nn3cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple index builds on same table - in one sweep?
From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote=
:
>>> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>>> FYI, in 8.3.13 I get this for all but one index:
>>>> ERROR: =A0deadlock detected
>
>>> Is that trying to build them by hand? =A0The upthread request here is a=
ctually
>>> already on the TODO list at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo and it
>>> talks a bit about what works and what doesn't right now:
>
>> Yes, by hand. =A0It creates an entry for the index but lists but marks
>> it as INVALID
>
> Are you trying to use CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY? =A0AFAIR that doesn't
> support multiple index creations at the same time. =A0Usually you wouldn'=
t
> want that combination anyway, since the point of CREATE INDEX
> CONCURRENTLY is to not prevent foreground use of the table while you're
> making the index --- and multiple index creations are probably going to
> eat enough I/O that you shouldn't be doing them during normal operations
> anyhow.
>
> Just use plain CREATE INDEX.

I thought they'd stand in line waiting on each other.  I'll give it a try.