Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMJk99ogge2ouWh-8nYZz9Fjr7mhWgNLbR78pTo98vdC6A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >>>> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, > >>> That's a neat trick. However, if you start a new SnapshotNow scan while one is >>> ongoing, the primordial scan's snapshot will change mid-stream. > >> Do we ever do that? > > Almost certainly yes. For example, a catcache load may invoke catcache > or relcache reload operations on its way to opening the table or index > needed to fetch the desired row. Ah, of course. I was thinking they would be rare by design. > I think you can only safely do this if each caller has its own snapshot > variable, a la SnapshotDirty, and that's going to be hugely more > invasive. OK, will look into it. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: