On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
It seems Kevin's right. Not sure why that doesn't break. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
