On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:23:37PM +0100, Jonathan Scher wrote:
> >Because when it drops the old copy of the table there had better not be
> >any concurrent readers.

> Then, is it possible to take a share update exclusive lock until the new 
> table is ready, then an access exclusive one only in order to switch 
> tables? I don't think it's already coded like that...

That's lock upgrading, which opens you up to deadlocks. If another
process grabs a lock after your update exclusive, you're not going to
be able to upgrade it.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

• Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock? at 2007-03-01 17:23:37 from Jonathan Scher

Responses

• Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock? at 2007-03-02 10:34:11 from Jonathan Scher

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-03-01 19:17:20
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
Previous:	From: Darcy Buskermolen	Date: 2007-03-01 18:07:27
	Subject: Re: Possible Bug: high CPU usage for stats collector in 8.2