On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 22:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > But it seems > that it's far from clear what to do about it, and it's not the job of > this patch to fix it anyway.
Agreed. > Regarding the actual patch, it looks mostly good. Questions: > > 1. Why in rewriteSupport.c are we adding a call to > heap_inplace_update() in some situations? Doesn't seem like this is > something we should need or want to be monkeying with. Hmm, yes, that looks like a hangover. Will change. No others similar. > 2. Instead of AlterTableGreatestLockLevel(), how about > AlterTableGetLockLevel()? Yeah, it's going to be the highest lock > level required by any subcommand, but it seems mildly overspecified. > I don't feel strongly about this one, though, if someone has a strong > contrary opinion... I felt it indicated the process it's using. Happy to change. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
