On 10/8/12 6:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> writes:
Yeah, what's the risk to renaming an index during concurrent access?
SnapshotNow searches for the pg_class row could get broken by *any*
transactional update of that row, whether it's for a change of relname
or some other field.
A lot of these problems would go away if we rejiggered the definition of
SnapshotNow to be more like MVCC. We have discussed that in the past,
but IIRC it's not exactly a simple or risk-free change in itself.
Still, maybe we should start thinking about doing that instead of trying
to make REINDEX CONCURRENTLY safe given the existing infrastructure.
Yeah, I was just trying to remember what other situations this has come up in.
My recollection is that there's been a couple other cases where that would be
useful.
My recollection is also that such a change would be rather large... but it
might be smaller than all the other work-arounds that are needed because we
don't have that...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
