Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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? > > I don't think it should (which implies that EXCLUSIVE is a bad name).
Agreed, EXCLUSIVE was used to mean an _exclusive_ writer. The new words I proposed were PRESERVE or STABLE. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
