| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning |
| Date: | 2015-08-20 17:36:11 |
| Message-ID: | 55D6100B.60300@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/20/2015 06:19 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 06:58:24PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Do you mean ATTACH and DETACH, if they require access exclusive lock on
>> the parent, should not be in the first cut? Or am I misreading?
>
> Sorry I was unclear.
>
> ATTACH and DETACH should be in the first cut even if they require an
> access exclusive lock.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
I don't see a way for them to *ever* not require an access exclusive lock.
We could eventually implement:
DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
... but that's the only way I can see around it.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-08-20 17:37:55 | Re: TAP tests are badly named |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-08-20 17:13:13 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |