Pavan Deolasee escribió: > >> Also I am not sure if the issue is big enough to demand the change. > > > > I think it is, effectively what we have now is "your DDL could fail randomly > > for reasons that are out of your control" :( > > Yeah. I think we better fix this, especially given the above mentioned > scenario.
The pg_shdepend code has code to grab a lock on the object being dropped, which is also grabbed by someone who wants to add a dependency on the object. Perhaps the pg_depend code should do the same. I don't think this closes the original report though, unless we ensure that the lock taken by vacuum conflicts with that one. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
