Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks
| От | Amit Langote |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+HiwqEWv1qLpONP_V-zwhYwOhXvwMYxsKLpo0nMr6=aMaMLsg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks (Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp>) |
| Ответы |
Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Yamada-san, On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 8:51 AM Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp> wrote: > On 2021/01/25 18:19, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:24 AM Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Anybody else want to look this patch over before I mark it Ready For Committer? > > > > Would be nice to have others look it over. Thanks. > > Thanks for creating the patch! > > I tried to review the patch. Here is my comment. Thanks for the comment. > * According to this thread [1], it might be better to replace elog() with > ereport() in the patch. > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/92d6f545-5102-65d8-3c87-489f71ea0a37%40enterprisedb.com Could you please tell which elog() of the following added by the patch you are concerned about? + case TM_Invisible: + elog(ERROR, "attempted to lock invisible tuple"); + break; + + case TM_SelfModified: + case TM_BeingModified: + case TM_WouldBlock: + elog(ERROR, "unexpected table_tuple_lock status: %u", res); + break; + default: + elog(ERROR, "unrecognized table_tuple_lock status: %u", res); All of these are meant as debugging elog()s for cases that won't normally occur. IIUC, the discussion at the linked thread excludes those from consideration. -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: