RE: bug with dropping tables and transactions.

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: bug with dropping tables and transactions.
Date: 2000-09-12 07:47:58
Message-ID: 000c01c01c8d$c4accf80$2801007e@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alfred Perlstein
>
> There seems to a race condition somewhere where that if you're
> running let's say pg_dumpall and happen to drop a table mid-dump
> pg_dumpall will die because it looses the table.
>
> Would it make sense to use a transaction system so that when a table
> is renamed/dropped it doesn't actually go away until all transactions
> that started before the drop take place?
>
> one could do probably implement this using refcounts and translating
> dropped tables into temporary mangled names.
>

Your proposal seems to be an extension of how to commit/rollback
DDL (drop/alter/rename etc ..) commands properly. There has been
a long discussion about it but unfortunately we have no consensus
for it AFAIK.

There may be another way.
pg_dump(all) may be able to acquire a e.g share lock for pg_class
to prevent drop/rename/.. operations of other backends. Of cource
DDL(drop/rename/..) commands should acquire a row exclusive
lock on pg_class.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2000-09-12 08:32:23 Re: bug with dropping tables and transactions.
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-09-12 07:42:41 AW: new relkind for view