On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > Ok, I'll take a stab at such a list. Can anyone think of any reasons
> > why CREATE TRIGGER couldn't get by with ShareLock?
ISTM that we do this in many ways on pg_class, if we believe the docs.
* relhasindex (bool) set by CREATE INDEX but not unset by DROP INDEX
* relhasrules (bool)
* reltriggers (int2) set by CREATE and DROP, since its an integer
Seems we should have one consistent way of adding associated objects.
If CREATE INDEX can take a Share lock and can update pg_class, why would
it not be theoretically possible for CREATE TRIGGER?
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-04 20:29:43|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: new function array_init |
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2008-06-04 20:22:11|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: new function array_init|