| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Change lock requirements for adding a trigger |
| Date: | 2008-06-04 20:33:20 |
| Message-ID: | 29221.1212611600@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> We have
> * relhasindex (bool) set by CREATE INDEX but not unset by DROP INDEX
> * relhasrules (bool)
> * reltriggers (int2) set by CREATE and DROP, since its an integer
Right.
> If CREATE INDEX can take a Share lock and can update pg_class, why would
> it not be theoretically possible for CREATE TRIGGER?
It's (probably) theoretically possible, if we replace reltriggers with a
bool that acts more like relhasindex, ie it's a hint to go look in
pg_triggers. My point was just that you can't arbitrarily decide that
some operation needs only a given strength of lock if you are not up to
speed on these sorts of details.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-06-04 20:34:01 | Re: Proposal: new function array_init |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-06-04 20:31:27 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |