Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> 1. Find a way to make the processing order consistent (eg by driving it
> > >> off OID ordering). Doesn't seem easy, but maybe I'm missing an idea.
> > > Hmm, what about
> > > 1. get the complete list of tables to truncate, AccessShareLock'ed, get
> > > their names
> > > 2. release locks
> > > 3. sort the list lexicographically (or by Oid, whatever)
> > > 4. acquire the stronger locks, in list order, taking care of not
> > > aborting if a table is no longer there
> > > 5. truncate
> > Releasing locks is no good ... what if someone adds/drops FK constraints
> > while you've not got any lock?
> Recheck after acquiring the stronger locks, unlock and drop from list.
Oops, this doesn't cover the "add FK constraints" case, only drop. I
think it would work to keep the locks on the tables initially mentioned
in the command (i.e. those not followed by CASCADE). Hmm, but it fails
if it cascades more than once, so scratch that.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-06-28 17:58:13|
|Subject: Re: Instability in TRUNCATE regression test |
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2006-06-28 17:53:16|
|Subject: Re: Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as|