út 28. 1. 2020 v 17:01 odesílatel 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing....@alibaba-inc.com> napsal:
> > > 2020年1月24日 上午4:47，Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 写道： > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:51 PM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > I proposed just ignoring those new indexes because it seems much simpler > than alternative solutions that I can think of, and it's not like those > other solutions don't have other issues. > > > +1. > > I complete the implementation of this feature. > When a session x create an index idx_a on GTT A then > For session x, idx_a is valid when after create index. > For session y, before session x create index done, GTT A has some data, > then index_a is invalid. > For session z, before session x create index done, GTT A has no data, > then index_a is valid. > > > For example, I've looked at the "on demand" building as implemented in > global_private_temp-8.patch, I kinda doubt adding a bunch of index build > calls into various places in index code seems somewht suspicious. > > > +1. I can't imagine that's a safe or sane thing to do. > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > > Opinion by Pavel > + rel->rd_islocaltemp = true; <<<<<<< if this is valid, then the name of > field "rd_islocaltemp" is not probably best > I renamed rd_islocaltemp > I don't see any change? > Opinion by Konstantin Knizhnik > 1 Fixed comments > 2 Fixed assertion > > > Please help me review. > > > Wenjing > >
