| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3 |
| Date: | 2024-05-14 12:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1cec7fb9-e7ac-8523-06fd-60b25c9a7b7d@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Bertrand,
09.05.2024 15:20, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Oh I see, your test updates an existing dependency. v4 took care about brand new
> dependencies creation (recordMultipleDependencies()) but forgot to take care
> about changing an existing dependency (which is done in another code path:
> changeDependencyFor()).
>
> Please find attached v5 that adds:
>
> - a call to the new depLockAndCheckObject() function in changeDependencyFor().
> - a test when altering an existing dependency.
>
> With v5 applied, I don't see the issue anymore.
Me too. Thank you for the improved version!
I will test the patch in the background, but for now I see no other
issues with it.
Best regards,
Alexander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2024-05-14 12:03:49 | RE: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-05-14 11:41:06 | Re: elog/ereport VS misleading backtrace_function function address |