Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> How would that help? This isn't a lock failure.
> It is, rather, a failure to lock. Currently, LOCK TABLE only works on
> tables, and pg_dump only applies it to tables. If the offending
> object had been a table rather than a view, pg_dump would (I believe)
> have blocked trying to obtain an AccessShareLock against the existing
> AccessExclusiveLock.
Yeah, and it would still have failed once the lock was released.
Short of providing some sort of global DDL-blocking lock (with attendant
performance consequences) it's not clear how to create an entirely
bulletproof solution here. This isn't a new problem --- we've been
aware of pg_dump's limitations in this area for many years.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
