Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=2CxPpAC6hsE9jVDKLKdtTjVRRQ+9y28W0dDmG_-n23FQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Can you come up with an halfway realistic scenario why an index oid, not
>> a table, constraint, sequence oid, would be relied upon?
>
> Is there an implication for SIREAD locks?  Predicate locks on index
> pages include the index OID in the tag.

Ah, yes, but that is covered by a call to
TransferPredicateLocksToHeapRelation() in index_concurrent_set_dead().

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode
Next
From: Andreas Joseph Krogh
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge