Tom Lane said:
> Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Nah, it was a false alarm: I was looking at the first post-patch
>>> report,
>>>
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mongoose&dt=2006-07-02%2003:30:01>>>
but apparently mongoose had m
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since CVS updates are not atomic, it's hard to see how mirroring could be,
> unless you did something like disallow updates, mirror, allow updates. I
> suspect such a cure would be worse than the disease. This is such a rare
> event that I don't think
Last year, I questioned why CREATE TRIGGER acquires an
AccessExclusiveLock on its target table:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00764.php
Acquiring an ExclusiveLock should be sufficient: we can safely allow
concurrent SELECTs on the table. (The -hackers thread discusse
