From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE .. SET SCHEMA lock strength |
Date: | 2011-01-01 21:24:08 |
Message-ID: | 1293917048.5984.5.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 13:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> ALTER RENAME and ALTER SET SCHEMA are both in the nature of changing the
> object's identity. Consider the fairly typical use-case where you are
> renaming an "old" instance out of the way and renaming another one into
> the same schema/name. Do you really want that to be a low-lock
> operation? I find it really hard to envision a use case where it'd be
> smart to allow some concurrent operations to continue using the the old
> instance while others start using the new one.
At least in Unix land, that's a handy property. And we're frequently
cursing those other operating systems where it doesn't work that way.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-01-01 21:28:10 | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-01 21:21:34 | SSI SLRU low-level functions first cut |