Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/8/17 04:12, Okano, Naoki wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I have a feeling that this was proposed a few times in the ancient past > >> but did not go through because of locking issues. I can't find any > >> emails about it through. Does anyone remember? Have you thought about > >> locking issues? > > Is this e-mail you are finding? > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140916124537.GH25887%40awork2.anarazel.de > > No, that's not the one I had in mind. I see. But I could only find it. Would anyone know e-mails discussed about locking issues?
> > I am considering to add 'OR REPLACE' clause as a first step. > > At least, I think there is no need to change the locking level when > > replacing a trigger with 'EXECUTE PROCEDURE' clause. > > In PostgreSQL, we currently have ShareRowExclusiveLock lock on relation on > > which trigger is created. ShareRowExclusiveLock is enough to replace a > > trigger. > > Also, we currently have RowExclusiveLock on pg_trigger. RowExclusiveLock is > > enough to replace a trigger, too. > > I'm not saying it's not correct. I was just wondering. Thank you for your opinion! I think we do not need to change locking level in this case. If someone notice a mistake in my understanding, please point out it. Regards, Okano Naoki Fujitsu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
