Tom Lane a écrit :
> Jonathan Scher <js(at)oxado(dot)com> writes:
>   
>> CLUSTER uses an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock. Why does it forbid concurrent reads?
>>     
>
> Because when it drops the old copy of the table there had better not be
> any concurrent readers.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
>
>   
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...

Regards
Jonathan Scher

In response to

• Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock? at 2007-03-01 15:31:38 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock? at 2007-03-01 18:47:56 from Martijn van Oosterhout

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: August Zajonc	Date: 2007-03-01 17:48:31
	Subject: Re: New feature request: FlashBack Query
Previous:	From: Pavan Deolasee	Date: 2007-03-01 17:05:24
	Subject: Re: HOT - preliminary results