Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 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 <peter_e@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.
Added:
Reduce locking required for ALTER commands * http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00533.php *
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg01083.php *
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg02349.php
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do