Re: DROP COLUMN (was RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate)

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DROP COLUMN (was RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate)
Date: 2002-04-14 04:58:43
Message-ID: 00c601c1e371$0e324670$0200a8c0@SOL
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> No, VACUUM has the same transactional constraints as everyone else
> (unless you'd like a crash during VACUUM to trash your table...)

Seriously, you can run VACUUM in a transaction and rollback the movement of
a tuple on disk? What do you mean by same transactional constraints?

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-14 05:02:59 Re: [PATCHES] WITH DELIMITERS in COPY
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-14 04:54:46 Re: [PATCHES] [patch] fe-connect.c doesn't handle EINTR correctly