On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ben Leslie <benno@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I'm wondering if I can/should expect schema renames to be isolated. > > Nope, you should not. > > This is not an especially easy thing to fix, because to have the system > behave as you wish it did, your second transaction would have to be > ignoring already-committed DDL changes, and it is very easy to show > examples where that would be fatal. As mentioned on bug #14691[1], I think it might make theoretical sense to do SSI checks on system catalogue tables + associated caches (though I don't claim that's easy). Then a SERIALIZABLE transaction would abort if you created a conflict cycle with some other session that has moved your cheese and it was also running in SERIALIZABLE isolation. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170605191104.1442.24999%40wrigleys.postgresql.org -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
