Re: Change lock requirements for adding a trigger

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Change lock requirements for adding a trigger
Date: 2008-05-30 14:51:34
Message-ID: 1212159094.4120.114.camel@ebony.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 19:18 -0500, Decibel! wrote:

> Is there a reason that we can't add a trigger to a table while a
> select is running? This is a serious pain when trying to setup
> londiste or slony.

This is constrained by locking.

There are a subset of DDL commands that might be able to be performed
with just an ExclusiveLock or ShareLock rather than an
AccessExclusiveLock. Nobody has studied which sub-statements this might
apply to, but its do-able since CREATE INDEX already does this.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-05-30 15:30:14 Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-30 14:46:19 Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL