Re:

From: Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)infinito(dot)it>
To: Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it>
Cc: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re:
Date: 2013-07-14 16:58:24
Message-ID: CAKoxK+4XZr8Xcen9v06Y=JmG1QxZw5nWSPYvJ5=WCvoGU6KUkQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Vincenzo Romano
<vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it> wrote:
> Hi all
> I'm making some experiments with table archiving and I'd like to
> "replace" a full table F with an empty one E.
> In order to do this I see only one way:
>
> ALTER TABLE F RENAME TO T;
> ALTER TABLE E RENAME TO F;
> ALTER TABLE T RENAME TO E; -- optional
>
> This implies there's a moment when the full table doesn't exist.
> Would a transaction enclosure ensure that the table F will be always
> available to all clients?

If I get it right using transaction boundaries around the DDL will
prevent clients to query the F table until the transaction ends, and
this is due to the locking of the alter table. In other words, a query
performed against the F table while the transaction is running will
simply locks without generating any error.

Hope this helps.
Luca

In response to

  • at 2013-07-12 11:23:40 from Vincenzo Romano

Responses

  • Re: at 2013-07-14 18:36:16 from Vincenzo Romano

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vincenzo Romano 2013-07-14 18:36:16 Re:
Previous Message Alexander Farber 2013-07-14 11:28:02 Re: Syntax error at or near “on”