| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 20:08:37 |
| Message-ID: | 13336.1393963717@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-03-04 11:40:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't care for (2). I'd like to have lock strength reduction as
>> much as anybody, but it can't come at the price of reduction of
>> reliability.
> I am sorry, but I think this is vastly overstating the scope of the
> pg_dump problem. CREATE INDEX *already* doesn't require a AEL, and the
> amount of problems that has caused in the past is surprisingly low.
CREATE INDEX happens to be okay because pg_dump won't try to dump indexes
it doesn't see in its snapshot, ie the list of indexes to dump is created
client-side. CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, otoh, already did break pg_dump,
and we had to hack things to fix it; see commit
683abc73dff549e94555d4020dae8d02f32ed78b.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2014-03-04 20:09:50 | Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP) |
| Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2014-03-04 20:00:59 | Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged" |