On 13/10/2018 04:01, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't see how this could be argued. It has to be a self-conflicting > lockmode, otherwise you'd end up doing renames of tables where you > cannot see the previous state. And you'd get weird errors about updating > invisible rows etc.
> I don't buy this description. Imo it's a fundamental correctness > thing. Without it concurrent DDL would potentially overwrite the rename, > because they could start updating while still seeing the old version. OK, I can refine those descriptions/comments. Do you have any concerns about the underlying principle of this patch? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
