Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );
Date: 2015-04-01 04:45:57
Message-ID: 20150401044557.GA1087154@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:17:03PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Attached a very WIP patch to reduce lock level when setting autovacuum
> > reloptions in "ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. )" statement.
>
> I think the first thing we need to here is analyze all of the options
> and determine what the appropriate lock level is for each, and why.

Agreed. Fabrízio, see this message for the discussion that led to the code
comment you found (search for "relopt_gen"):

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140321034556.GA3927180@tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-04-01 05:07:06 Re: vac truncation scan problems
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2015-04-01 03:01:28 pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables