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
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 |