Re: DROP TABLE vs inheritance
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DROP TABLE vs inheritance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28847.1242225870@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DROP TABLE vs inheritance (Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes: > FWIW i just tested this with ~100 clients doing begin; ALTER TABLE > test_lock ADD COLUMN commit; here is the timing. Is there some other > concern that im not seeing? The situation where someone quickly acquires the lock isn't much of an issue, because they'll drop it almost immediately after the permissions check fails. However consider a scenario like this: 1. Legitimate user U1 does a SELECT on table T and then goes to sleep with open transaction. 2. Nefarious user U2 does LOCK TABLE T (exclusively). He blocks behind U1's transaction, since the permissions check won't happen till he gets the lock. 3. Now, everybody else trying to use table T will queue up behind U2's request. Their operations might have been perfectly able to run in parallel with U1's AccessShareLock, but they'll wait behind an ungranted AccessExclusiveLock. So it's definitely not a purely academic concern. However, there isn't any part of this behavior that we can change without breaking other stuff :-( regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: