From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Padgett <npadgett(at)redhat(dot)com>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)cygnus(dot)com>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Date: | 2001-08-04 19:51:36 |
Message-ID: | 345.996954696@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Patch applied.
Idly looking this over again, I noticed a big OOPS:
>> ! freeList(lockstmt->rellist);
>> ! pfree(relname);
>> ! pfree(relname);
It is most definitely NOT the executor's business to release pieces of
the querytree; this will certainly break plpgsql functions, for example,
where the same querytree is executed repeatedly.
Bruce, please remove those lines.
Another thing I am concerned about now that I look more closely is that
the multi-rel case code opens the relations without any lock, and then
assumes they'll stick around while it opens and access-checks the rest.
This will fail if someone else drops one of the rels meanwhile. I think
the entire routine should be reduced to a simple loop that opens, locks,
and closes the rels one at a time. The extra code bulk to do it this
way isn't buying us anything at all.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-04 22:03:31 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-04 19:42:42 | Re: Small patch for Hurd |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-04 22:03:31 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-04 19:42:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for Hurd |