On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2014-08-26 12:44:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I always was of the opinion that a exclusive lock is still *MUCH* better >> than what we have today. > Well, if somebody has some interest in that, here is a rebased patch > with the approach using low-level locks: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRkwKFgn4BFUybqU-Oo-=gcbq0k-8h93gr6fx-ggrp...@mail.gmail.com
My patch need to be improved doc and to be renamed option name (--minimum-locks?) Also I need to test, e.g., foreign key and primary key. Anyway, If REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch Michael submitted is committed then I might need to rebase the patch (rather it's not necessary..?) So I will see how it goes for a while. Regards, ------- Sawada Masahiko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
