| From: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: relation ### modified while in use |
| Date: | 2000-10-23 11:12:35 |
| Message-ID: | 006201c03ce2$2652a600$bc7a30d0@sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > As for locks,weak locks doesn't pass intensive locks. Dba
> > seems to be able to alter a table at any time.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Tom suggested placing a shared
lock on
> any table that is accessed until end of tx. Noone can alter table until
all users have
> closed their txns and not accessed tables again.
More of that - while one xaction will wait to alter a table no new xaction
will be
allowed to access this table too.
> Remember that this would include creating an index ...
I don't think so. Index creation requires
1. share lock on schema
2. share lock on data
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2000-10-23 13:29:36 | Re: failed runcheck |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 2000-10-23 11:06:48 | Re: relation ### modified while in use |