On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 03:25:58PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > Postgres would have no trouble building an index of the existing data using > only shared locks. The problem is that any newly inserted (or updated) records > could be missing from such an index. > > To do it you would then have to gather up all those newly inserted records. > And of course while you're doing that new records could be inserted. And so > on. There's no guarantee it would ever finish, though I suppose you could > detect the situation if the size of the new batch wasn't converging to 0 and > throw an error.
Why throw an error? Just grab a lock that would prevent any new inserts from occuring. Or at least make that an option. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
