Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200114215942.GA18482@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables
Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Jan-13, Tom Lane wrote: > That seems fundamentally wrong. By the time we've queued an object for > deletion in dependency.c, we have a lock on it, and we've verified that > the object is still there (cf. systable_recheck_tuple calls). > If shdepDropOwned is doing it differently, I'd say shdepDropOwned is > doing it wrong. Hmm, it seems to be doing it differently. Maybe it should be acquiring locks on all objects in that nested loop and verified them for existence, so that when it calls performMultipleDeletions the objects are already locked, as you say. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: