| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ... REPLACE WITH |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 19:34:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4D07C6B8.4070200@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/14/10 11:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Because then you have to take an AccessExclusiveLock on the target
> table, of course.
Well, you have to do that for DROP TABLE as well, and I don't see any
way around doing it for REPLACE WITH.
As for the utility of this command: there is no question that I would
use it. I'm not sure I like the syntax (I'd prefer REPLACE TABLE ____
WITH _____), but that's painting the bike shed. While the command may
appear frivolous and unnecessary syntactical ornamentation to some, I
have to say that doing the "table doesy-doe" which this command
addresses is something I have written scripts for on at least 50% of my
professional clients. It keeps coming up.
In order for REPLACE WITH to be really useful, though, we need a command
cloning at table design with *all* constraints, FKs, keys, and indexes.
Currently, I still don't think we have that ... do we?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-14 19:35:08 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... REPLACE WITH |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-12-14 19:29:09 | Triggered assertion "!(tp.t_data->t_infomask & HEAP_XMAX_INVALID)" in heap_delete() on HEAD [PATCH] |