| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Change lock requirements for adding a trigger |
| Date: | 2008-06-04 20:28:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1212611288.4148.207.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > Ok, I'll take a stab at such a list. Can anyone think of any reasons
> > why CREATE TRIGGER couldn't get by with ShareLock?
>
> pg_class.reltriggers.
ISTM that we do this in many ways on pg_class, if we believe the docs.
We have
* relhasindex (bool) set by CREATE INDEX but not unset by DROP INDEX
* relhasrules (bool)
* reltriggers (int2) set by CREATE and DROP, since its an integer
Seems we should have one consistent way of adding associated objects.
If CREATE INDEX can take a Share lock and can update pg_class, why would
it not be theoretically possible for CREATE TRIGGER?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-04 20:29:43 | Re: Proposal: new function array_init |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-06-04 20:22:11 | Re: Proposal: new function array_init |