Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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?
> I don't think it should (which implies that EXCLUSIVE is a bad name).
Agreed, EXCLUSIVE was used to mean an _exclusive_ writer. The new words
I proposed were PRESERVE or STABLE.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-01-03 17:34:59|
|Subject: Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?|
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2006-01-03 16:55:15|
|Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and|