From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 |
Date: | 2022-01-23 08:10:34 |
Message-ID: | 20220123081034.tcg7tob6fu3pmlpr@jrouhaud |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 09:23:34PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> I am sending updated patches
I've been looking a bit deeper at the feature and I noticed that there's no
locking involved around the session variable usage, and I don't think that's
ok. AFAICS any variable used in a session will be cached in the local hash
table and will never try to access some catalog or cache, so I don't have any
naive scenario that would immediately crash, but this has some other
implications that seems debatable.
For instance, right now nothing prevents a variable from being dropped while
another session is using it.
Obviously we can't lock a session variable forever just because a session
assigned a value once ages ago, especially outside of the current transaction.
But if a session set a variable in the local transaction, I don't think that
it's ok to have a subsequent query failing because someone else concurrently
dropped the variable.
I only backlogged this current thread but I didn't see that being discussed.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-01-23 08:25:56 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2022-01-23 05:36:02 | Re: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure |