| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: executor relation handling |
| Date: | 2018-10-01 13:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | 21609.1538401784@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> On 2018/10/01 2:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that the call sites should ultimately look like
>> Assert(CheckRelationLockedByMe(...));
>> but for hunting down the places where the assertion currently fails,
>> it's more convenient if it's just an elog(WARNING).
> Should this check that we're not in a parallel worker process?
Hmm. I've not seen any failures in the parallel parts of the regular
regression tests, but maybe I'd better do a force_parallel_mode
run before committing.
In general, I'm not on board with the idea that parallel workers don't
need to get their own locks, so I don't really want to exclude parallel
workers from this check. But if it's not safe for that today, fixing it
is beyond the scope of this particular patch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-10-01 14:43:09 | Re: automatic restore point |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-01 13:45:36 | Re: executor relation handling |