From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ATTACH PARTITION locking documentation for DEFAULT partitions |
Date: | 2021-07-12 13:27:54 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvrK7e-KgqZUcQr=JQV8MSAPCL5Wqfk4wgXD8JJKgSCn2A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 00:14, Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. I think that covers the basics of what I was
> missing in these docs, and although it does not cover the recursive
> 'if the check is implied by constraints don't lock this partition',
> I'd say that your suggested patch is good enough. Thanks for looking
> over this.
Isn't that covered the following?
+ <para>
+ Further locks must also be held on all sub-partitions if the table being
+ attached is itself a partitioned table. Likewise if the default
+ partition is itself a partitioned table. The locking of the
+ sub-partitions can be avoided by adding a <literal>CHECK</literal>
+ constraint as described in
+ <xref linkend="ddl-partitioning-declarative-maintenance"/>.
</para>
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-12 13:38:48 | Re: enable_resultcache confusion |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-07-12 13:22:26 | Is tuplesort meant to support bounded datum sorts? |