| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET NOT NULL [NOT VALID / CONCURRENTLY]? |
| Date: | 2016-12-21 11:01:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAASwCXcO+X1Q6NKRzkV3auBoLVe_iYqtMo5onGnXAeWbW6_Wnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Is anyone working on fixing this for PostgreSQL 10?
>
> Not as far as I know.
>
> IMO this and other similar cases should all be handled the same way:
> create the constraint NOT VALID, then VALIDATE it while holding a weak
> lock that only blocks concurrent schema changes.
Sounds like a good approach.
Similar to what we (Trustly) did when we sponsored the FOR KEY LOCK
feature to improve concurrency,
we would be very interested in also sponsoring this feature, as it
would mean a great lot to us.
I don't know if this is the right forum trying to find someone/some
company to sign up for the task,
please let me know if I should mail to some other list. Thanks.
Joel Jacobson
Trustly
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-12-21 11:29:06 | Re: invalid combination of options "-D - -F t -X stream" in pg_basebackup |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2016-12-21 10:33:44 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |