| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3 |
| Date: | 2024-06-13 18:27:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobeqs5tE8h-_PF_Orp67kNJdRJ9b4pqDYQr1WjLT24ZEg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:52 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > table_open(childRelId, ...) would lock any "ALTER TABLE <childRelId> DROP CONSTRAINT"
> > > already. Not sure I understand your concern here.
> >
> > I believe this is not true. This would take a lock on the table, not
> > the constraint itself.
>
> I agree that it would not lock the constraint itself. What I meant to say is that
> , nevertheless, the constraint can not be dropped. Indeed, the "ALTER TABLE"
> necessary to drop the constraint (ALTER TABLE <childRelId> DROP CONSTRAINT) would
> be locked by the table_open(childRelId, ...).
Ah, right. So, I was assuming that, with either this version of your
patch or the earlier version, we'd end up locking the constraint
itself. Was I wrong about that?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-06-13 18:39:16 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-06-13 18:11:02 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |