From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE (with INHERITS) and ACCESS EXCLUSIVE locks |
Date: | 2006-04-04 21:53:01 |
Message-ID: | 14860.1144187581@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> writes:
> As for how this plays out in the real world, a pg_dumpall will start
> and run for a few hours. Sometime during that, this function might
> get called. When it does, an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is held against
> the table identified as t13, here directly referenced only as a
> FOREIGN KEY.
It's the addition of a foreign key constraint that's biting you. That
requires installing triggers on the pre-existing table (t13, also t14
in your example), and that requires an exclusive lock.
Since we don't currently allow any ON SELECT triggers, it's possible
that adding a trigger could be downgraded to just ExclusiveLock (which
wouldn't conflict with pg_dump's AccessShareLock), but I can't say that
I'm enthusiastic about that idea.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edmund Bacon | 2006-04-04 21:58:06 | Re: Spurious rows returned with left join? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-04 21:30:58 | Re: Spurious rows returned with left join? |