On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> On 2013-03-06 20:59:37 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > OK. Patches updated... Please see attached. > > With all the work done on those patches, I suppose this is close to being > > something clean... > > Yes, its looking good. There are loads of improvements possible but > those can very well be made incrementally. > > > I have the feeling we are talking past each other. Unless I miss > > > something *there is no* WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks between phase 2 and > > > 3. But one WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks for all would be totally > > > sufficient. > > > > > OK, sorry for the confusion. I added a call to > WaitForMultipleVirtualLocks > > also before phase 3. > > Honestly, I am still not very comfortable with the fact that the > ShareLock > > wait on parent relation is done outside each index transaction for build > > and validation... Changed as requested though... > > Could you detail your concerns a bit? I tried to think it through > multiple times now and I still can't see a problem. The lock only > ensures that nobody has the relation open with the old index definition > in mind... > I am making a comparison with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY where the ShareLock wait is made inside the build and validation transactions. Was there any particular reason why CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait is done inside a transaction block? That's my only concern. -- Michael
