On 2013-09-27 05:41:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > In this case, doing a call to WaitForOldSnapshots after the swap phase > is enough. It was included in past versions of the patch but removed > in the last 2 versions.
I don't think it is. I really, really suggest following the protocol used by index_drop down to the t and document every *slight* deviation carefully. We've had more than one bug in index_drop's concurrent feature. > Btw, taking the problem from another viewpoint... This feature has now > 3 patches, the 2 first patches doing only code refactoring. Could it > be possible to have a look at those ones first? Straight-forward > things should go first, simplifying the core feature evaluation. I haven't looked at them in detail, but they looked good on a quick pass. I'll make another pass, but that won't be before, say, Tuesday. 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
