Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoZSoKRJqa84r+gzKpKnpcvL+gtvWb8PNMfCZdyJK3fsPA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:54 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > I have responded about heavy-weight locking stuff in my next email [1] > and why I think the approach I mentioned will work. I don't deny that > I might be missing something here. > > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BT2CWqp40YqYttDA1Skk7wK6yDrkCD5GZ80QGr5ze-6g%40mail.gmail.com I mean I saw that but I don't see how it addresses the visibility issue. There could be a relation that is not visible to your snapshot and upon which AccessExclusiveLock is held which needs to be invalidated. You can't lock it because it's AccessExclusiveLock'd already. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: