Re: CLUSTER, using SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock?

On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:23:37PM +0100, Jonathan Scher wrote:
> >Because when it drops the old copy of the table there had better not be
> >any concurrent readers.

> Then, is it possible to take a share update exclusive lock until the new
> table is ready, then an access exclusive one only in order to switch
> tables? I don't think it's already coded like that...

That's lock upgrading, which opens you up to deadlocks. If another
process grabs a lock after your update exclusive, you're not going to
be able to upgrade it.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.