Re: pg_restore dependencies

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_restore dependencies
Date: 2009-04-10 21:59:31
Message-ID: 2026.1239400771@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Doesn't that eliminate any chance of running two CREATE INDEXes
>> concurrently on the same table?

> No, since neither of them will have any locking dependencies, which are
> only for items that take an exclusive lock on the table(s), such as FK
> constraints.

In that case a CREATE INDEX would also fail to be seen as conflicting
with an ALTER ADD FOREIGN KEY, which I thought was the nub of Josh's
complaint.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-04-10 22:44:12 Re: pg_restore dependencies
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-04-10 21:54:25 Unicode string literals versus the world