From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Kouber Saparev <kouber(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is it safe to rename an index through pg_class update? |
Date: | 2020-03-09 18:34:40 |
Message-ID: | 20200309183440.hptayvs3axqtfc27@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
On 2020-03-09 17:47:23 +0200, Kouber Saparev wrote:
> На пт, 6.03.2020 г. в 21:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> написа:
> > On 2020-02-27 10:52:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > FWIW, I can't immediately think of a reason this would cause a problem,
> > > at least not on 9.4 and up which use MVCC catalog scans. If you're
> > > really still on 9.3 then it's notably more risky. In any case, I've
> > > not had any caffeine yet today, so this doesn't count for much.
> >
> > It likely could cause some problems if somebody concurrently executed
> > DDL affecting the same table. At least some "concurrently updated"
> > errors, and perhaps some worse ones. I'd at least add an explicit LOCK
> > TABLE on the underlying table that prevents concurrent catalog
> > modifications.
> >
>
> I am trying to escape the Access Exclusive lock over the table indeed,
> otherwise I would use the ALTER statement instead anyway, which makes a
> lock implicitly. Thanks for the responses.
You'd not have to take an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE. A lower level would
suffice, e.g. SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, which still allows data changes.
> There is nobody else doing DDLs except me - Mr. DBA, so I guess I am
> safe on this side. ;)
If autovacuum triggered a vacuum/analyze it'd would e.g. also try to
update pg_class.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2020-03-09 19:44:37 | Re: gdal version for Postgis 2.4? |
Previous Message | Zwettler Markus (OIZ) | 2020-03-09 15:50:34 | gdal version for Postgis 2.4? |