On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 21:36, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 08:02, David Rowley wrote:\>
> > I've adjusted the patch and attached what I came up with. Let me know
> > what you think.
>
> I like this improved wording. Thanks!
I've pushed this with some very minor further
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 08:02, David Rowley wrote:\>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 02:30, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > The algoritm as described in your patch implies that this recursive
> > locking is conditional on _only_ the check-constraints of the topmost
> > partition ("performed whilst hol
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 02:30, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> The algoritm as described in your patch implies that this recursive
> locking is conditional on _only_ the check-constraints of the topmost
> partition ("performed whilst holding ... and all of its
> sub-partitions, if any"), whereas act
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 15:28, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 00:14, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay. I think that covers the basics of what I was
> > missing in these docs, and although it does not cover the recursive
> > 'if the check is implied by constra
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 00:14, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. I think that covers the basics of what I was
> missing in these docs, and although it does not cover the recursive
> 'if the check is implied by constraints don't lock this partition',
> I'd say that your suggested
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 14:06, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 01:01, David Rowley wrote:
> > I've spent a bit of time hacking at this and I've come up with the
> > attached patch.
>
> Matthias, any thoughts on my revised version of the patch?
Sorry for the delay. I think that cove
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 01:01, David Rowley wrote:
> I've spent a bit of time hacking at this and I've come up with the
> attached patch.
Matthias, any thoughts on my revised version of the patch?
David
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 00:03, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> PFA an updated patch. I've updated the wording of the previous patch,
> and also updated this section in alter_table.sgml, but with different
> wording, explictly explaining the process used to validate the altered
> default constraint.
xclusively locked.
PFA an updated patch. I've updated the wording of the previous patch,
and also updated this section in alter_table.sgml, but with different
wording, explictly explaining the process used to validate the altered
default constraint.
Thanks for the review.
With regar
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:47:26PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> I recently noticed that ATTACH PARTITION also recursively locks the
> default partition with ACCESS EXCLUSIVE mode when its constraints do
> not explicitly exclude the to-be-attached partition, which I couldn't
> find document
ments just that.
With regards,
Matthias van de Meent.
From 2bf23cd8018c7e2cbff4f00be4aba1e806750998 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:43:00 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v1] ATTACH PARTITION locking documentation for DEFAULT
partitions.
---
doc/src/sgml/ddl
11 matches
Mail list logo
