On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-08-26 12:44:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I always was of the opinion that a exclusive lock is still *MUCH* better
>> than what we have today.
> Well, if somebody has some interest in that, here is a rebased patch
> with the approach using low-level locks:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRkwKFgn4BFUybqU-Oo-=Gcbq0K-8H93Gr6fX-GGRPDXg@mail.gmail.com
My patch need to be improved doc and to be renamed option name
(--minimum-locks?)
Also I need to test, e.g., foreign key and primary key.
Anyway, If REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch Michael submitted is committed then
I might need to rebase the patch (rather it's not necessary..?)
So I will see how it goes for a while.
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
