Sorry about that, I hit the submit button on accident before I finished typ=
ing out the issue. But I guess there was enough there for you to understan=
d the problem.
Thanks for the quick response.
Is there any alternative I can use to prevent the exclusive lock (other tha=
n changing the app, we don't have access to the source code)?
Thanks,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]=20
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:41 PM
To: Rob Brucks
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5609: Exclusive Locks & Permission=20
"Rob Brucks" <rob.brucks@rackspace.com> writes:
> The user's permissions need to be checked before requesting an exclusive
> lock on the table for the alter.
Unfortunately, that cure is as bad or worse than the disease. It's not
possible to do a permissions check before acquiring any lock --- what if
somebody is changing the permissions under you, or even dropping or
renaming the table? We could acquire sharelock, do the permissions
check, and then upgrade to exclusive lock; but lock upgrading has its
own unpleasant consequences, notably increased risk of deadlock.
So it's unlikely this is going to get changed.
regards, tom lane
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of t=
he
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwi=
se
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspac=
e.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is proh=
ibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by =
e-mail
at abuse@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
