From: | "Willy-Bas Loos" <willybas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | using DROP in a transaction |
Date: | 2008-02-07 23:53:59 |
Message-ID: | 1dd6057e0802071553o79f0a158ub120452d377a230a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
We have a large set of simple queries, that can run in both PostgreSQL and
BDE (Corel Paradox backend).
We want to be able to re-create some half-product tables (cache, sortof),
while they are (possibly) being accessed by other users. Otherwise there
would be a severe performance penalty. We were thinking about re-creating
them in a transaction. Concurrent transactions may occur.
But it doesn´t seem to work out.
I tested it this way (in PostgreSQL 8.2.6 and in 8.1.10):
in TTY1, run:
create table test (id int4 primary key);
insert into test (id) values (1);
then in TTY2, run
begin;
drop table test;
create table test (id int4 primary key);
insert into test (id) values (2);
then, in TTY1:
select * from test;
Actually, i thought of a longer test, but it stops here - there is no
response, no prompt anaymore, until i cancel the query.
Is this correct behaviour of PostgreSQL? (i think not..)
The easiest solution would be to just empty the tables instead of dropping
them i guess, but this made me wonder about transactions. I've read the
chapter on Transaction
Isolation<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/transaction-iso.html>,
but it doesn't explain the behaviour of DROP. Anything else i need to know?
(OMG transactions are not pure magic ;P )
WBL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Willy-Bas Loos | 2008-02-07 23:58:16 | Re: using DROP in a transaction |
Previous Message | Andy Colson | 2008-02-07 22:50:36 | Re: offline* |