On 13/10/2018 04:01, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't see how this could be argued. It has to be a self-conflicting
> lockmode, otherwise you'd end up doing renames of tables where you
> cannot see the previous state. And you'd get weird errors about updating
> invisible rows etc.
> I don't buy this description. Imo it's a fundamental correctness
> thing. Without it concurrent DDL would potentially overwrite the rename,
> because they could start updating while still seeing the old version.
OK, I can refine those descriptions/comments. Do you have any concerns
about the underlying principle of this patch?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
