| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Klychkov <aaklychkov(at)mail(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |
| Date: | 2018-07-23 15:06:28 |
| Message-ID: | 8c69c675-14c5-2d31-f543-1b62441e26e9@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23.07.18 15:14, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> Moreover, if you rename Table without query locking, it may crushes your
> services that
> do queries at the same time, therefore, this is unlikely that someone
> will be do it
> with concurrent queries to renamed table, in other words, with running
> production.
> So, I think it doesn't have real sense to use the lower lock for example
> for tables (at least by default).
> However, renaming Indexes with the lower lock is safe for database consumers
> because they don't know anything about them.
You appear to be saying that you think that renaming an index
concurrently is not safe. In that case, this patch should be rejected.
However, I don't think it necessarily is unsafe. What we need is some
reasoning about the impact, not a bunch of different options that we
don't understand.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-23 15:07:45 | Re: Have an encrypted pgpass file |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-07-23 15:06:25 | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |