| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Onder Kalaci" <onderk(at)microsoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER INDEX .. RENAME allows to rename tables/views as well |
| Date: | 2021-10-19 22:25:35 |
| Message-ID: | 0D4F5321-E95A-4806-A193-AD50D3F8E367@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/19/21, 3:13 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2021-Oct-19, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
>> I did consider this, but I figured it might be better to keep the lock
>> level consistent for a given object type no matter what the statement
>> type is. I don't have a strong opinion about this, though.
>
> Yeah, the problem is that if there is a concurrent process waiting on
> your lock, we'll release ours and they'll grab theirs, so we'll be
> waiting on them afterwards, which is worse.
Makes sense.
> BTW I noticed that the case of partitioned indexes was wrong too. I
> fixed that, added it to the tests, and pushed.
Ah, good catch. Thanks!
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-19 22:26:20 | Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-10-19 22:18:55 | Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers) |