Re: concurrent SELECT blocking ALTER?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: nharkins(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: concurrent SELECT blocking ALTER?
Date: 2014-01-29 22:32:39
Message-ID: 52E98187.2070907@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 1/29/14, 4:59 PM, Neil Harkins wrote:
> Why are those exclusive locks present?
> Can't the database rely on mvcc for those reads
> without locking? The autocommit should be
> increasing the xid used for the reads, so the
> ALTER should be able to slip in-between?

One would think so, but it's more complicated. There is a long thread
on pgsql-hackers spreading over many months that discusses the
intricacies of reducing the strength of the locks taken by DDL commands.
This is being addressed, but at the moment most DDL commands take
exclusive locks.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Harkins 2014-01-29 22:37:39 Re: concurrent SELECT blocking ALTER?
Previous Message Neil Harkins 2014-01-29 21:59:27 concurrent SELECT blocking ALTER?