Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Nonsense.
Ahem.
I'm running Slony against a big replication set. While slon runs COPY
foo(colnamelist) FROM STDIN, I can't execute pg_relation_size(foo_oid).
pg_locks will show that the AccessShareLock on foo is not granted.
That's only possible if Slony is taking AccessExclusive lock; if so,
your gripe is properly directed to the Slony folks, not to
pg_relation_size which is acting as a good database citizen should.
More precisely, it executes TRUNCATE;COPY at the same time; there might
be additional locks to prevent using the table. Still, I see no reason
why pg_relation_size shouldn't continue to use SearchSysCache as id did
for years now. There's no sense in using locking mechanisms on table foo
while reading file system data; pg_class is sufficient to locate the
table's files.
Regards,
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
