Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 477D05FF.8080409@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > >>> On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>>> Paranoia would >>>> suggest forbidding *any* form of ALTER TABLE when there are pending >>>> trigger events, but maybe that's unnecessarily strong. >>>> > > >> I disagree. This is an implementation limitation, so it makes sense to >> try to restrict the user as least as possible. >> > > There's a tradeoff here between security, flexibility, and the amount of > work we want to put into it. At the moment it's not clear to me that > it's worth spending the amount of work that would be needed to determine > which forms of ALTER TABLE are "safe" in this connection. If you're > feeling hot about it, feel free to do the legwork. > > (A precedent is that all forms of ALTER TABLE take exclusive lock, > which is more or less the same thing for the cross-backend case. > There's been occasional discussion of whether some forms could > take lesser locks, but never enough interest to make it happen.) > > > I'd still like to see a sane use case. The other thing being traded off is possibly simplicity. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: