On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:41 AM Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/2018 23:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 13/10/2018 04:01, Andres Freund wrote: > >> I don't see how this could be argued. It has to be a self-conflicting > >> lockmode, otherwise you'd end up doing renames of tables where you > >> cannot see the previous state. And you'd get weird errors about updating > >> invisible rows etc. > > > >> I don't buy this description. Imo it's a fundamental correctness > >> thing. Without it concurrent DDL would potentially overwrite the rename, > >> because they could start updating while still seeing the old version. > > > > OK, I can refine those descriptions/comments. Do you have any concerns > > about the underlying principle of this patch? > > Patch with updated comments to reflect your input. >
Great... this patch will help a lot so I took the liberty to perform some review: - the doc and code (simple) looks good - the patch apply cleanly against current master - all tests (check and check-world) past without any issue I also perform some test using DDLs and DMLs in various sessions: - renaming indexes / dml against same table - creating and renaming indexes / altering tables in other session - renaming indexes / dropping indexes I didn't found any issue, so the patch looks in a very good shape. Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
