| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu, pg(at)rbt(dot)ca, zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
| Date: | 2006-01-03 16:26:51 |
| Message-ID: | 16809.1136305611@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> Dumb question: if the ALTER is done inside a transaction, and then
> reverted at the end of the transaction, does that mean that no other
> transactions would have those permissions? I think the general use-case
> is that you only one the session doing the ALTER to be able to use these
> special modes, not anyone else who happens to be hitting the table at
> that time...
Such an ALTER would certainly require exclusive lock on the table,
so I'm not sure that I see much use-case for doing it like that.
You'd want to do the ALTER and commit so as not to lock other people
out of the table entirely while doing the bulk data-pushing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-03 16:28:36 | Re: Add a "Known Issues" section |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-01-03 16:21:37 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |