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
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|