Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ALTER TABLE .. SET SCHEMA lock strength

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE .. SET SCHEMA lock strength
Date: 2011-01-01 21:24:08
Message-ID: 1293917048.5984.5.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 13:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> ALTER RENAME and ALTER SET SCHEMA are both in the nature of changing the
> object's identity.  Consider the fairly typical use-case where you are
> renaming an "old" instance out of the way and renaming another one into
> the same schema/name.  Do you really want that to be a low-lock
> operation?  I find it really hard to envision a use case where it'd be
> smart to allow some concurrent operations to continue using the the old
> instance while others start using the new one.

At least in Unix land, that's a handy property.  And we're frequently
cursing those other operating systems where it doesn't work that way.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2011-01-01 21:28:10
Subject: Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-01-01 21:21:34
Subject: SSI SLRU low-level functions first cut

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group