On tor, 2010-01-28 at 10:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > ISTM you should explicitly grab a lock on the of-type at some point, to > > make sure it doesn't get dropped while you're busy creating the table. > > How do we protect against that for the types used in columns? > > We don't. There is no concept of a lock on a type. > > For scalar types this is more or less irrelevant anyway, since a scalar > has no substructure that can be altered in any interesting way. I'm not > sure how hard we ought to work on making composites behave differently. > I think it's as likely to cause problems as solve them.
The right thing would probably be SELECT FOR SHARE on the pg_type row, but I don't see that sort of thing used anywhere else in system catalog changes. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
