Re: ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS requires AccessExclusiveLock

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS requires AccessExclusiveLock
Date: 2009-08-08 16:19:28
Message-ID: 1249748368.4839.158.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 15:58 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > > Is there a good reason for $subject, other than that the code is entangled
> > > with other ALTER TABLE code?
> >
> > I think it could be lower, but it would take nontrivial restructuring of
> > the ALTER TABLE support. In particular, consider what happens when you
> > have a list of subcommands that don't all require the same lock level.
> > I think you'd need to scan the list and find the highest required lock
> > level before starting ...
>
> IIRC there was a patch from Simon to address this issue, but it had some
> holes which he didn't have time to close, so it sank. Maybe this can be
> resurrected and fixed.

I was intending to finish that patch in this release cycle.

MERGE needs further work if you are looking for a project. It isn't
immediately obvious but MERGE logic is a requirement for maintaining
materialized views, which is why I was working on that.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-08 16:33:17 Re: Commitfest 2009-07 - 6 patches moved to "Returned with Feedback"
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-08-08 16:15:32 Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD