Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock
Date: 2008-10-07 14:40:14
Message-ID: 603c8f070810070740y1133e3f9q23f254f7617a422b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> Urk... this seems pretty undesirable.
>
> OK, but please say what behaviour you would like in its place.
>
> Or are you saying you dislike this so much that you would prefer not to
> be able to run ALTER TABLE concurrently?

Personally, yes. I work mostly with small databases where ease of
management is a lot more important than increased concurrency, and
"constraints almost always have unique names but you're not allowed to
rely on that in any queries or code because there is this one wierd
case that you probably will never hit where it might not be true"
doesn't sound like ease of management to me. However, I hope we're
not forced into that choice, because this sounds like a great feature
otherwise.

....Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2008-10-07 14:46:28 Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-10-07 14:37:36 Re: doubts about toast_flatten_tuple_attribute/heap_form_tuple