On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 13:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Tom asked what happens when two transactions attempt to do concurrent > actions on the same table. Your response was that we should handle it > like CREATE INDEX, and handle the update of the pg_class row > non-transactionally. But of course, if you use a self-conflicting > lock at the relation level, then the relation locks conflict and you > never have to worry about how to update the pg_class entry in the face > of concurrent updates.
>From memory, Tom was also worried about the prospect of people updating pg_class directly using SQL. That seems a rare, yet valid concern. I've already agreed with your point that we should use SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
