From: | "Gaetano Mendola" <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai" <asmodai(at)wxs(dot)nl> |
Subject: | Re: constraint modification on todo list |
Date: | 2003-09-15 21:31:20 |
Message-ID: | 00ae01c37bd0$b7ddb440$32add6c2@mm.eutelsat.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai" <asmodai(at)wxs(dot)nl> wrote:
> -On [20030911 15:43], Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >We can't ALTER a table that's already in use when the first ALTER
> >starts, either --- its attempt to exclusive-lock the table will fail.
> >But once you get the exclusive lock, you can (in Postgres) perform
> >a series of operations without fear that subsequently-started
> >transactions will be able to see the incompletely changed state of the
> >table. Evidently Oracle can't handle that. That's why they need to
> >invent combination operations like MODIFY CONSTRAINT.
>
> As my colleague says:
>
> it is indeed a lazy choice, but super safe and that's the goal.
Does your colleague know the Aesops's Fables: "The fox and the Grapes" ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-15 22:30:23 | Re: some strange messages |
Previous Message | tachuelita | 2003-09-15 20:36:10 | Compiling HP-UX 10.20 |