From: | Patrick Dunford <a47xxy(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Server does not reply to Alter Table |
Date: | 2002-02-07 00:57:44 |
Message-ID: | MPG.16cc9837dfa5a563989680@news.postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
In article <25074(dot)1012924704(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> in newsgroup
comp.databases.postgresql.general on Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:10:06 +0000
(UTC), Tom Lane(tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) said...
> Patrick Dunford <dunfordsoft(at)clear(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> > Using pgsql 7.1.3 I have found that on occasions, there is no reply to an
> > SQL statement like
>
> > ALTER TABLE x
> > ADD COLUMN y z
>
> You sure it's not just waiting for some other transaction to give up a
> lock on the table? ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN should be essentially
> instantaneous, since it doesn't touch the table data. But it needs to
> get exclusive lock on the table first.
Well if it doesn't send a message back to the client then there is no way
of knowing this.
I had it do the same thing on two Drop Table requests, eventually it came
back and said the relation does not exist so I knew then it had dropped
the table but not because it had replied to the first request.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Wolfe | 2002-02-07 01:00:33 | Re: Dream Server? |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-02-07 00:48:13 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL v7.2 Final Release |