From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address |
Date: | 2011-06-22 03:04:51 |
Message-ID: | 16527.1308711891@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
> because you're basically making the relation locking happen later than
> it does not, and that's going to cause problems.
> get_object_address_relobject() is a particularly egregious
> rearrangement. It seems to me that the right formula is to call
> relation_openrv() if missing_ok is false, and try_relation_openrv() if
> missing_ok is true. But that's sort of a pain, so I propose to first
> apply the attached patch, which gets rid of try_relation_openrv() and
> try_heap_openrv() and instead adds a missing_ok argument to
> relation_openrv() and heap_openrv(). If we do this, then the
> missing_ok argument can just be passed through all the way down.
> Thoughts? Comments? Objections?
At least the last hunk (in pltcl.c) seems to have the flag backwards.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-06-22 03:05:17 | Indication of db-shared tables |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-22 02:58:21 | Re: smallserial / serial2 |