Re: [BUG] lo_open() makes a warning/falls to an assertion

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [BUG] lo_open() makes a warning/falls to an assertion
Date: 2008-12-03 01:04:07
Message-ID: 26676.1228266247@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I think the solution is to have each large object have its own
> ResourceOwner, and store the snapshot in it. Otherwise the snapshot is
> left in the calling query's resowner, which is not good.

That's not gonna scale to transactions that touch lots of large objects
(think pg_dump). Also it seems like it would be arbitrarily altering
the past behavior of LOs. Why don't they just use the calling query's
snapshot (which I think is what the historical behavior is, though I'm
too lazy to check right now)?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-12-03 01:06:05 Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-12-03 01:00:15 Re: maintenance memory vs autovac