From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: make VALIDATE domain constraint lock on related relations as ShareUpdateExclusiveLock |
Date: | 2025-08-22 07:02:22 |
Message-ID: | 23e1feac-aa38-443d-8585-b5afbf5d0833@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Committed.
Note that the proposed commit message had an example using ALTER TABLE,
which was not right. I used an example from your email using ALTER
DOMAIN instead.
On 13.05.25 11:34, wenhui qiu wrote:
> HI
> Thanks for the patch! and overall this is a valuable improvement in
> terms of concurrency and consistency with table-level behavior.The
> refactoring to pass LOCK MODE into validateDomainCheckConstraint()
> improves flexibility and clarity. and the patch also looks good to me.
>
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 2:23 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 8:57 AM jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> >
> > hi.
> >
> > We can still perform DML operations on a table while validating its
> > check constraint.
> > Similarly, it should be fine to do DML while validating domain
> constraints?
> > but currently, it's not allowed for domain constraints.
> >
> > The attached patch addresses this problem.
>
> This makes sense, and the patch also looks good to me.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dilip Kumar
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-08-22 07:06:42 | Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber. |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-08-22 06:13:27 | Re: Report reorder buffer size |