Re: PATCH: Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL

From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL
Date: 2015-02-08 01:05:46
Message-ID: 54D6B66A.20008@proxel.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
> AlterTableGetLockLevel(at)tablecmds(dot)c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
> AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint under the same
> banner as AT_AddConstraint. Thoughts?

A new version of the patch is attached which treats them as the same for
locking. I think it is correct and improves readability to do so.

--
Andreas Karlsson

Attachment Content-Type Size
add-fk-lock-strength-v7.patch text/x-patch 173.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-02-08 01:18:55 assessing parallel-safety
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-02-08 00:20:27 Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts