On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:15:25AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What's worse, once you have excluded writes you have to rescan the entire > > table to be sure you haven't missed anything. So in the scenarios where this > > whole thing is actually interesting, ie enormous tables, you're still > > talking about a fairly long interval with writes locked out. Maybe not as > > long as a complete REINDEX, but long. > > I was thinking you would set a flag to disable use of the FSM for > inserts/updates while the reindex was running. So you would know where to find > the new tuples, at the end of the table after the last tuple you read.
What about keeping a seperate list of new tuples? Obviously we'd only do this when an index was being built on a table. Since it would probably be problematic and expensive to check for this every time you accessed a table, it would make sense to check only at the start of a transaction and have an index build wait until all running transactions knew that an index build was going to happen. -- 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 6: explain analyze is your friend
