Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2014-03-04 09:51:40
Message-ID: CAOeZVifj=icp8+0TGovWqr3WK7RNqPN5QsRtTrAfo2_1YuAQKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > If its not the case, the user should be more careful about when he is
> > scheduling backups to so that they dont conflict with DDL changes.
>
> That is most certainly the wise choice.
>
> > I am not too comfortable with exposing the locking type to the user. That
> > may be just me though.
>
> Why would that be a problem? Hard reasons, please.
>

Should we genuinely depend on the user's good judgement to decide the
locking types?
--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2014-03-04 09:57:56 Re: UNION ALL on partitioned tables won't use indices.
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-03-04 09:43:49 Re: jsonb and nested hstore