| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, 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: | 2015-04-05 23:19:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRL_j4GAeP4HYED7KZshD0UW0RABhZVDd=qy5OxZApvaQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 February 2015 at 20:05, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Committed. We move forwards, slowly but surely. Thanks for the patch.
Cool! Thanks for showing up.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2015-04-05 23:36:49 | Re: PATCH: Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL |
| Previous Message | Artem Luzyanin | 2015-04-05 21:59:27 | Re: PATCH: Spinlock Documentation |