Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu, pg(at)rbt(dot)ca, zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Date: 2006-01-03 17:08:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Such an ALTER would certainly require exclusive lock on the table,
> >> so I'm not sure that I see much use-case for doing it like that.
> >> You'd want to do the ALTER and commit so as not to lock other people
> >> out of the table entirely while doing the bulk data-pushing.
> > Maybe this just isn't clear, but would EXCLUSIVE block writes from all
> > other sessions then?
> I don't think it should (which implies that EXCLUSIVE is a bad name).

Agreed, EXCLUSIVE was used to mean an _exclusive_ writer.  The new words
I proposed were PRESERVE or STABLE.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-01-03 17:34:59
Subject: Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-01-03 16:55:15
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group