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...
In response to
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|