From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Locking for Rename To new_name works differently for different objects |
Date: | 2014-10-15 16:04:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZZe=nND7X0k9GiSJwsBvhUQBFBoVu=-yHq94t7qkPq4Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I have observed that for renaming some of the objects
>> AccessExclusiveLock is taken on object whereas for
>> other kind of objects no lock is taken on object before
>> renaming the object.
>
> The usual theory for DDL updates of all types (not just rename)
> is that an explicit lock is only needed for objects whose catalog
> representation comprises more than one row. Otherwise, the implicit
> locking involved in updating that row is sufficient to serialize
> different updates.
That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered, but I'm willing
to believe that at least some of the differences might also be
haphazard.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ants Aasma | 2014-10-15 16:32:42 | Re: WIP: dynahash replacement for buffer table |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-15 16:03:20 | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |