On mån, 2010-02-22 at 10:32 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 12:56 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 15:58 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > > > > > > > Is there a good reason for $subject, other than that the code is > > > > > > > entangled > > > > > > > with other ALTER TABLE code? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could be lower, but it would take nontrivial > > > > > > restructuring of > > > > > > the ALTER TABLE support. In particular, consider what happens when > > > > > > you > > > > > > have a list of subcommands that don't all require the same lock > > > > > > level. > > > > > > I think you'd need to scan the list and find the highest required > > > > > > lock > > > > > > level before starting ... > > > > > > > > > > IIRC there was a patch from Simon to address this issue, but it had > > > > > some > > > > > holes which he didn't have time to close, so it sank. Maybe this can > > > > > be > > > > > resurrected and fixed. > > > > > > > > I was intending to finish that patch in this release cycle. > > > > > > Since you're busy with Hot Standby, any chance you could pass it on? > > > > If you'd like. It's mostly finished, just one last thing to finish: > > atomic changes to pg_class via an already agreed API. > > I assume this did not get done for 9.0. Do we want a TODO item?
Yes. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
