On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On sön, 2012-01-29 at 22:01 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Patch now locks index in AccessExclusiveLock in final stage of drop. >> >> Doesn't that defeat the point of doing the CONCURRENTLY business in the >> first place? > > That was my initial reaction. > > We lock the index in AccessExclusiveLock only once we are certain > nobody else is looking at it any more. > > So its a Kansas City Shuffle, with safe locking in case of people > doing strange low level things.
Yeah, I think this is much safer, and in this version that doesn't seem to harm concurrency. Given our previous experiences in this area, I wouldn't like to bet my life savings on this having no remaining bugs - but if it does, I can't find them. I'll mark this "Ready for Committer". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers