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
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” |