On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 22:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> But it seems
> that it's far from clear what to do about it, and it's not the job of
> this patch to fix it anyway.
Agreed.
> Regarding the actual patch, it looks mostly good. Questions:
>
> 1. Why in rewriteSupport.c are we adding a call to
> heap_inplace_update() in some situations? Doesn't seem like this is
> something we should need or want to be monkeying with.
Hmm, yes, that looks like a hangover. Will change. No others similar.
> 2. Instead of AlterTableGreatestLockLevel(), how about
> AlterTableGetLockLevel()? Yeah, it's going to be the highest lock
> level required by any subcommand, but it seems mildly overspecified.
> I don't feel strongly about this one, though, if someone has a strong
> contrary opinion...
I felt it indicated the process it's using. Happy to change.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
