On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dumb question: if the ALTER is done inside a transaction, and then > > reverted at the end of the transaction, does that mean that no other > > transactions would have those permissions? I think the general use-case > > is that you only one the session doing the ALTER to be able to use these > > special modes, not anyone else who happens to be hitting the table at > > that time... > > Such an ALTER would certainly require exclusive lock on the table, > so I'm not sure that I see much use-case for doing it like that. > You'd want to do the ALTER and commit so as not to lock other people > out of the table entirely while doing the bulk data-pushing.
Maybe this just isn't clear, but would EXCLUSIVE block writes from all other sessions then? The post I replied to mentioned that the ALTER would affect all backends is why I'm wondering... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
