| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock |
| Date: | 2008-10-08 09:10:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1223457026.4747.282.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > (That in itself is painful, surely DDL should fail if
> > it sees another DDL statement in progress trying to do same thing).
>
> Surely not. The other transaction doing the DDL might roll back.
Maybe so, but trying to create a duplicate object in the first place is
also fairly questionable. Why would anybody be doing that and it *not*
be an error? Of potentially a more serious kind. I'd rather have it fail
with a sensible error message so I can work out what to do about that,
rather than wait for hours and then have it fail anyway.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-08 09:34:45 | Re: Transactions and temp tables |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-08 08:24:49 | Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock |