Hi,

Is there a way the CLUSTER command can be changed to not take an 
exclusive lock on the table, and instead allow reads on the old table 
and index, just preventing writes?

Chris


Mon, 10 May 2004 16:01:52 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
CLUSTER locking
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> Is there a way the CLUSTER command can be changed to not take an 
> exclusive lock on the table,

No.  Committing the relfilenode swap would cut the knees off of any
active scan on the old file.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 10 May 2004 07:46:32 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: CLUSTER locking 
> No.  Committing the relfilenode swap would cut the knees off of any
> active scan on the old file.

Could it upgrade its lock to exclusive just before doing the swap?

Chris


Mon, 10 May 2004 20:27:03 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: CLUSTER locking
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
>> No.  Committing the relfilenode swap would cut the knees off of any
>> active scan on the old file.

> Could it upgrade its lock to exclusive just before doing the swap?

That is a recipe for deadlock failures.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 10 May 2004 09:06:59 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: CLUSTER locking 