From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Naoya Anzai <anzai-naoya(at)mxu(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5856: pg_attribute.attinhcount is not correct. |
Date: | 2011-04-10 12:23:47 |
Message-ID: | 20110410122347.GE10697@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 07:35:53AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > 3. Make AlterTableCreateToastTable acquire only ShareUpdateExclusiveLock and
> > remove the pass-usage heuristic from ATRewriteCatalogs. For this to be valid,
> > toast_insert_or_update() must behave reasonably in the face of a relation
> > concurrently acquiring a TOAST table. Since it takes reltoastrelid from the
> > relcache, toast_insert_or_update() will not act on the change in the middle of a
> > single call. Even if it did, I don't see any risks.
> >
> > I'd lean toward #3 if someone else is also confident in its correctness.
> > Otherwise, #1 seems like the way to go. Preferences? Other ideas?
>
> I haven't scrutinized the code but I would prefer #3 if it's viable
> without too much of a code footprint.
It's certainly compact; patch attached.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
alter-table-toast-v1.patch | text/plain | 4.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-10 15:19:26 | Re: BUG #5856: pg_attribute.attinhcount is not correct. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-10 11:35:53 | Re: BUG #5856: pg_attribute.attinhcount is not correct. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jesper Krogh | 2011-04-10 14:24:54 | Re: k-neighbourhood search in databases |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-10 11:35:53 | Re: BUG #5856: pg_attribute.attinhcount is not correct. |