| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | "John Smith" <sodgodofall(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No such file or directory" in a specific combination of transactions with temp tables | 
| Date: | 2008-03-01 21:11:12 | 
| Message-ID: | 4435.1204405872@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I think I see what's happening here. We have restricted two-phase commit 
> so that you're not supposed to be able to PREPARE TRANSACTION if the 
> transaction has touched any temporary tables. That's because the 2nd 
> phase commit can be performed from another backend, and another backend 
> can't mess with another backend's temporary tables.
> However in this case, where you CREATE and DROP the temporary table in 
> the same transaction, we don't detect that, and let the PREPARE 
> TRANSACTION to finish. The detection relies on the lock manager, but 
> we're not holding any locks on the dropped relation.
This explanation is nonsense; we certainly *are* holding a lock on any
relation that's about to be dropped.  Experimentation shows that
AccessExclusiveLock is indeed held (you can see it in pg_locks), but
nonetheless the PREPARE doesn't complain.  Did you trace through
exactly why?
I'm dissatisfied with the proposed patch because I'm afraid it's
patching a symptom rather than whatever the real problem is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-01 22:04:37 | Re: "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No such file or directory" in a specific combination of transactions with temp tables | 
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2008-03-01 10:14:44 | Re: OSSP can be used in the windows environment now! |