On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 01:39:56PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-18-05 at 13:29 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I think what Joshua really wants is an equivalent of this
>
> That's not what his original email asked for, at any rate.
>
> > start:
> > BEGIN;
> > LOCK TABLE foo I
On Fri, 2007-18-05 at 13:29 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think what Joshua really wants is an equivalent of this
That's not what his original email asked for, at any rate.
> start:
> BEGIN;
> LOCK TABLE foo IN ACCESS EXCLUSIVE MODE NOWAIT;
> -- if fail, rollback and go to st
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-18-05 at 11:47 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > Assuming the concurrent psql stuff gets in, do you still see a use for
> > this?
>
> I think concurrent psql (and/or async libpq) is the right way to handle
> this sort of requirement. "DROP INDEX NOWAIT" is hacky, and
On Fri, 2007-18-05 at 11:47 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Assuming the concurrent psql stuff gets in, do you still see a use for
> this?
I think concurrent psql (and/or async libpq) is the right way to handle
this sort of requirement. "DROP INDEX NOWAIT" is hacky, and would be
difficult (impossible
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes. As cool as concurrent psql is... the majority of our users don't
use it. They use PgAdminIII.
So? IIRC pgAdmin can open up multiple connections already.
This should be client agnostic imo.
Just to be perfectly clear: the o
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. As cool as concurrent psql is... the majority of our users don't
> use it. They use PgAdminIII.
So? IIRC pgAdmin can open up multiple connections already.
> This should be client agnostic imo.
Just to be perfectly clear: the odds of making a
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 12:30:45PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
It seems that it may be useful to allow something like:
DROP INDEX NOWAIT.
The idea being, that the terminal will come back, the index will be
dropped in the background. If it doesn't drop, it rollback like n
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 12:30:45PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> It seems that it may be useful to allow something like:
>
> DROP INDEX NOWAIT.
>
> The idea being, that the terminal will come back, the index will be
> dropped in the background. If it doesn't drop, it rollback like normal
> an
Hello,
It seems that it may be useful to allow something like:
DROP INDEX NOWAIT.
The idea being, that the terminal will come back, the index will be
dropped in the background. If it doesn't drop, it rollback like normal
and logs.
I bring this up now, as an idea. We can argue about it later
