Re: Question on partitioning

From: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Question on partitioning
Date: 2024-02-06 19:55:17
Message-ID: CANzqJaBN=V+DjQt9veDGd9miE4bcE-7s3tY7DWsn1y4dh2ufyg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 2:40 PM veem v <veema0000(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Thank you Laurenz. Got it.
>
> So basically , you mean to say any DDL on a table won't allow the table to
> be read by other processes. I was under the assumption that it should allow
> the read queries to move ahead at least. I must be wrong here. Thanks for
> correcting me.
>

That word "any" in "any DDL" is quite a big word. It's certainly not going
to allow reads while you're adding a Foreign Key.

And the whole purpose of adding the CONCURRENTLY key word to CREATE INDEX
is because regular CREATE INDEX statements block everyone else.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-createindex.html
Look for the keyword CONCURRENTLY in
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-altertable.html

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sean v 2024-02-07 07:06:58 Re: Why doesn't Postgres apply limit on groups when retrieving N results per group using WHERE IN + ORDER BY
Previous Message veem v 2024-02-06 19:39:46 Re: Question on partitioning