From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
Date: | 2008-01-03 15:57:51 |
Message-ID: | 477D05FF.8080409@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
>>> On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paranoia would
>>>> suggest forbidding *any* form of ALTER TABLE when there are pending
>>>> trigger events, but maybe that's unnecessarily strong.
>>>>
>
>
>> I disagree. This is an implementation limitation, so it makes sense to
>> try to restrict the user as least as possible.
>>
>
> There's a tradeoff here between security, flexibility, and the amount of
> work we want to put into it. At the moment it's not clear to me that
> it's worth spending the amount of work that would be needed to determine
> which forms of ALTER TABLE are "safe" in this connection. If you're
> feeling hot about it, feel free to do the legwork.
>
> (A precedent is that all forms of ALTER TABLE take exclusive lock,
> which is more or less the same thing for the cross-backend case.
> There's been occasional discussion of whether some forms could
> take lesser locks, but never enough interest to make it happen.)
>
>
>
I'd still like to see a sane use case. The other thing being traded off
is possibly simplicity.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Lor | 2008-01-03 16:08:12 | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE printing logical and hardware I/O per-node |
Previous Message | Doug Knight | 2008-01-03 15:57:41 | Tuning Postgresql on Windows XP Pro 32 bit |