Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 23.02.2011 07:20, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Dan Ports wrote: >> >>> The obvious solution to me is to just keep the lock on both the >>> old and new page. >> >> That's the creative thinking I was failing to do. Keeping the >> old lock will generate some false positives, but it will be rare >> and those don't compromise correctness -- they just carry the >> cost of starting the transaction over. > > Sounds reasonable, but let me throw in another idea while we're at > it: if there's a lock on the index page we're about to delete, we > could just choose to not delete it. The next vacuum will pick it > up. Presumably it will happen rarely, so index bloat won't be an > issue. Yeah, that's probably better. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
