Was this fixed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of jue nov 18 15:31:16 -0300 2010:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 18 15:11:37 -0300 2010:
> >
> > > In the current master branch, it appears that "ALTER TABLE c INHERIT
> > > p" takes a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the child, which seems
> > > sufficient, and an AccessShareLock on the parent, which seems like it
> > > might not be; though I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly when
> > > it wouldn't be, especially since in 8.4 I'm fairly sure any ALTER
> > > TABLE command takes an AccessExclusiveLock.
> >
> > What if two of these run at the same time, and the parent doesn't
> > have children when they start? They would both try to set
> > relhassubclass, no?
>
> Yep, duplicated the issue that way.
>
> --
> Ãlvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
