Tom Lane [tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] wrote:
> Well, that's certainly a sufficient reason, if perhaps not the only
> reason. Dropping ts_defects_20090227 will require removal of FK triggers
> on ts_transets, and we can't do that concurrently with transactions that
> might be trying to fire those triggers.
>
> Now admittedly, it would probably be sufficient to take ExclusiveLock
> rather than AccessExclusiveLock when removing triggers, since we do not
> have triggers ON SELECT. Right now though, we just take
> AccessExclusiveLock for most any DDL on a table. There was a patch
> submitted last fall to reduce DDL locking in some cases, but it hasn't
> been reworked to fix the problems that were pointed out (and I
> disremember if it addressed DROP TRIGGER in particular anyway).
>
> regards, tom lane
Thanks for furthering my understanding of postgres (and probably other
SQL servers as well). I can fix this problem easily.
Brian
