From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Scope of constraint names |
Date: | 2002-07-04 11:59:49 |
Message-ID: | 1025783990.250.115.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > and not simply a lock on the pg_constraint table
>
> In this context, a lock on pg_constraint *is* global, because it will
> mean that no one else can be creating an index on some other table.
> They'd need to hold that same lock to ensure that *their* chosen
> constraint name is unique.
So I am understanding correctly.
I think it would be a rare event to have more than one person changing
the database structure at the same time. Anyway, the index example is a
bad example isn't it? It already takes an lock on pg_class which is
just as global.
Check constraints and foreign key constraints are two that I can see
affected in the manner described.
Anyway, my current implementation has constraint names unique to the
relation only -- not the namespace, although my locking may be excessive
in that area.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-04 12:20:19 | Re: BETWEEN Node & DROP COLUMN |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-04 09:27:18 | Re: BETWEEN Node & DROP COLUMN |