On 2012-11-28 14:09:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2012-11-27 23:46:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Attached is a very preliminary draft patch for this. I've not addressed > >> the question of whether we can clear indcheckxmin during transactional > >> updates of pg_index rows, but I think it covers everything else talked > >> about in this thread.
> > - I noticed while trying my old isolationtester test that > > heap_update_inplace disregards any locks on the tuple. I don't really > > see a scenario where this is problematic right now, seems a bit > > dangerous for the future though. > > I think this should be all right --- we have at least > ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the table and the index before we do > anything, so nobody else should be fooling with its pg_index entry. > > Attached is an updated patch for HEAD that I think is about ready to go. > I'll start making a back-patchable version shortly. Looks good! One minor thing I haven't noticed earlier: Perhaps we should also skip over invalid indexes in transformTableLikeClause's CREATE_TABLE_LIKE_INDEXES case? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
