Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, I'm now a little worried about whether concurrent index creations
> >> will actually work. Both CREATE INDEX operations will try to update
> >> the pg_class tuple to set relhasindex true.
>
> > Yes but t
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I'm now a little worried about whether concurrent index creations
>> will actually work. Both CREATE INDEX operations will try to update
>> the pg_class tuple to set relhasindex true.
> Yes but there's a big difference. It's at
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the end, I changed DefineIndex() to not call IndexesAreActive().
>
> I saw that. But is it a good solution? If someone has deactivated
> indexes on a user table (ie turned off relhasindex), then creating a
> new index would
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the end, I changed DefineIndex() to not call IndexesAreActive().
I saw that. But is it a good solution? If someone has deactivated
indexes on a user table (ie turned off relhasindex), then creating a
new index would activate them again, which wou
> -Original Message-
> From: Hiroshi Inoue
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Martin Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Yes, I understand locking the table, but empirically, two index
> > > creations will not run simultaneously on the same table.
> >
> > Hmm, on trying it you are right. T
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Martin Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, I understand locking the table, but empirically, two index
> > creations will not run simultaneously on the same table.
>
> Hmm, on trying it you are right. The second index creation blocks here:
>
> #6 0x1718e0 in XactLo
Martin Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I understand locking the table, but empirically, two index
> creations will not run simultaneously on the same table.
Hmm, on trying it you are right. The second index creation blocks here:
#6 0x1718e0 in XactLockTableWait (xid=17334) at lmgr.
