| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andrey Klychkov <aaklychkov(at)mail(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |
| Date: | 2018-10-17 22:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | fbf5f80c-b45b-43c6-3b31-7a408cc9501c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13/10/2018 04:01, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't see how this could be argued. It has to be a self-conflicting
> lockmode, otherwise you'd end up doing renames of tables where you
> cannot see the previous state. And you'd get weird errors about updating
> invisible rows etc.
> I don't buy this description. Imo it's a fundamental correctness
> thing. Without it concurrent DDL would potentially overwrite the rename,
> because they could start updating while still seeing the old version.
OK, I can refine those descriptions/comments. Do you have any concerns
about the underlying principle of this patch?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-17 22:11:55 | Re: MSVC compilers complain about snprintf |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-10-17 22:09:07 | Re: MSVC compilers complain about snprintf |