From: | Kouber Saparev <kouber(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is it safe to rename an index through pg_class update? |
Date: | 2020-03-09 15:47:23 |
Message-ID: | CAN4RuQsnrYKWGQyxTsc2YB+88wBhGugMeX3nQgtVH5_hx6LmBg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
На пт, 6.03.2020 г. в 21:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> написа:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-02-27 10:52:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > FWIW, I can't immediately think of a reason this would cause a problem,
> > at least not on 9.4 and up which use MVCC catalog scans. If you're
> > really still on 9.3 then it's notably more risky. In any case, I've
> > not had any caffeine yet today, so this doesn't count for much.
>
> It likely could cause some problems if somebody concurrently executed
> DDL affecting the same table. At least some "concurrently updated"
> errors, and perhaps some worse ones. I'd at least add an explicit LOCK
> TABLE on the underlying table that prevents concurrent catalog
> modifications.
>
I am trying to escape the Access Exclusive lock over the table indeed,
otherwise I would use the ALTER statement instead anyway, which makes a
lock implicitly. Thanks for the responses. There is nobody else doing DDLs
except me - Mr. DBA, so I guess I am safe on this side. ;)
Cheers,
--
Kouber Saparev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zwettler Markus (OIZ) | 2020-03-09 15:50:34 | gdal version for Postgis 2.4? |
Previous Message | Andreas Kretschmer | 2020-03-09 14:30:07 | Re: Real application clustering in postgres. |