From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block |
Date: | 1999-09-07 03:09:40 |
Message-ID: | 37D481F4.4A9FA60B@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> That's a good point --- we acquire exclusive lock anyway on a table
> >> about to be deleted, so just holding that lock till end of transaction
> >> should prevent other backends from trying to touch the table.
>
> > That reminds me.
> > DROP TABLE doesn't hold exlusive lock till end of transaction.
> > UnlockRelation() seems too early.
>
> I wondered about that too --- but I didn't change it because I wasn't
> sure it was wrong. Vadim, what do you think?
I remember that Hiroshi reported about this already and
seems we decided to remove UnlockRelation from heap_destroy_with_catalog(),
but forgot to do it?
>
> > Seems ALTER TABLE doesn't acquire any lock for the target
> > relation. It's OK ?
>
> None? Yipes. Seems to me it should *definitely* be grabbing
> AccessExclusiveLock.
Yes.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Warner | 1999-09-07 03:19:24 | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-09-07 03:00:55 | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block |