Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
Date
Msg-id 22737.1146093188@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Responses Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> What about not updating if the tuplecount is within X percent? Would
> that be safe enough to back-port?

Even if you got agreement that it was a good idea (I don't think so
myself), it wouldn't help Wes, at least not for values of X smaller
than 100.  Presumably, that first CREATE INDEX is trying to update
reltuples from zero to reality.

Also, the first CREATE INDEX has to set relhasindex = true, and that's
not fuzzy at all.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem
Next
From: Wes
Date:
Subject: Re: Catalog Access (was: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem