On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> > Dumb question: if the ALTER is done inside a transaction, and then
> > reverted at the end of the transaction, does that mean that no other
> > transactions would have those permissions? I think the general use-case
> > is that you only one the session doing the ALTER to be able to use these
> > special modes, not anyone else who happens to be hitting the table at
> > that time...
> Such an ALTER would certainly require exclusive lock on the table,
> so I'm not sure that I see much use-case for doing it like that.
> You'd want to do the ALTER and commit so as not to lock other people
> out of the table entirely while doing the bulk data-pushing.
Maybe this just isn't clear, but would EXCLUSIVE block writes from all
other sessions then? The post I replied to mentioned that the ALTER
would affect all backends is why I'm wondering...
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-01-03 16:48:01|
|Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-01-03 16:43:23|
|Subject: Re: Stats collector performance improvement|