Re: Allowing ALTER TYPE to change storage strategy
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2020-02-29T22:13:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:35:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> You'd need a moderately strong lock on each such table, which means >> there'd be serious deadlock hazards. I'm dubious that it's worth >> troubling with. > Yeah, I don't plan to do this in v1 (and I have no immediate plan to > work on it after that). But I wonder how is the deadlock risk any > different compared e.g. to DROP TYPE ... CASCADE? True, but dropping a type you're actively using seems pretty improbable; whereas the whole point of the patch you're proposing is that people *would* want to use it in production. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Allow ALTER TYPE to change some properties of a base type.
- fe30e7ebfa38 13.0 landed