| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: AW: relation ### modified while in use |
| Date: | 2000-10-23 09:52:06 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633680C2@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > What I'm proposing is that once an xact has touched a
> > > table, other xacts should not be able to apply schema updates to that
> > > table until the first xact commits.
> >
> > No, this would mean too many locks, and would leave the dba with hardly a
> > chance to alter a table.
> >
>
> Are there many applications which have many SELECT statements(without
> FOR UPDATE) in one tx ?
Why not ?
> As for locks,weak locks doesn't pass intensive locks. Dba
> seems to be able to alter a table at any time.
Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Tom suggested placing a shared lock on
any table that is accessed until end of tx. Noone can alter table until all users have
closed their txns and not accessed tables again. Remember that this would include
creating an index ...
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 2000-10-23 11:06:48 | Re: relation ### modified while in use |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-10-23 09:48:35 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: Announcing PgSQL - a Python DB-API 2.0 compliant interface to PostgreSQLL |