Re: ALTER INDEX .. RENAME allows to rename tables/views as well

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Onder Kalaci <onderk(at)microsoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER INDEX .. RENAME allows to rename tables/views as well
Date: 2021-10-19 22:12:51
Message-ID: 202110192212.e64katv4hls5@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-Oct-19, Bossart, Nathan wrote:

> I did consider this, but I figured it might be better to keep the lock
> level consistent for a given object type no matter what the statement
> type is. I don't have a strong opinion about this, though.

Yeah, the problem is that if there is a concurrent process waiting on
your lock, we'll release ours and they'll grab theirs, so we'll be
waiting on them afterwards, which is worse.

BTW I noticed that the case of partitioned indexes was wrong too. I
fixed that, added it to the tests, and pushed.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"People get annoyed when you try to debug them." (Larry Wall)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2021-10-19 22:18:55 Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-10-19 21:58:34 Re: Inconsistent behavior of pg_dump/pg_restore on DEFAULT PRIVILEGES