Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I doubt very much that this is safe. And even if it is safe >> today, I think it's a bad idea, because we're likely to try to >> reduce lock levels in the future. Taking no lock on a relation >> we're opening, even an index, seems certain to be a bad idea.
I'm with Robert on this. > What we're talking about is taking a look at the index definition > while the indexed table involved is covered by an ExclusiveLock. > Why is that more dangerous than inserting entries into an index > without taking a lock on that index while the indexed table is > covered by a RowExclusiveLock, as happens on INSERT? I don't believe that that happens. If it does, it's a bug. Either the planner or the executor should be taking a lock on each index touched by a query. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers