| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL |
| Date: | 2015-02-06 09:38:21 |
| Message-ID: | 54D48B8D.2050700@proxel.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/06/2015 08:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
>>> AlterTableGetLockLevel(at)tablecmds(dot)c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
>>> AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint under the same
>>> banner as AT_AddConstraint. Thoughts?
>>
>> Good point. I think moving those would be a good thing even though it is
>> technically not necessary for AT_AddConstraintRecurse, since that one should
>> only be related to check constraints.
>
> Andreas, are you planning to send an updated patch?
Yes, I will hopefully send it later today or tomorrow.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-06 09:46:01 | Re: Simplify sleeping while reading/writing from client |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2015-02-06 08:40:10 | Re: ExplainModifyTarget doesn't work as expected |