Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()
От | Dimitri Fontaine |
---|---|
Тема | Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m2k479kp0s.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address() (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > e.g. Suppose that you have a table with a unique index on column a. > Transaction A deletes the tuple where a = 1. Transaction B attempts to That's DML, I agree with you there, no need. In DML we have MVCC. Back to the problem you raised, it's DDL and we're sitting in between SnapshotNow and catalog cache entries. Not so comfy. I would guess that the problem (I confess didn't read carefully enough) happens after having done a cache lookup when trying to use its result? Could we check the object still exists as part of the cache lookup, or would that mean we don't have a cache anymore? Or is the answer related to consuming invalidation messages before returning a stale entry from the cache? Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: