Horton

Re: ALTER INDEX .. RENAME allows to rename tables/views as well

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, "Onder Kalaci" <onderk@microsoft.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-10-19T22:25:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 10/19/21, 3:13 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2021-Oct-19, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
>> I did consider this, but I figured it might be better to keep the lock
>> level consistent for a given object type no matter what the statement
>> type is.  I don't have a strong opinion about this, though.
>
> Yeah, the problem is that if there is a concurrent process waiting on
> your lock, we'll release ours and they'll grab theirs, so we'll be
> waiting on them afterwards, which is worse.

Makes sense.

> BTW I noticed that the case of partitioned indexes was wrong too.  I
> fixed that, added it to the tests, and pushed.

Ah, good catch.  Thanks!

Nathan

Commits

  1. Ensure correct lock level is used in ALTER ... RENAME