Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()
Date: 2011-11-09 16:00:09
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob=oMiL=GFrR8ff5qGD_uJMhSeJ5u0MMTZqm9DsF_e+MA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I would think you need to drop the now-useless lock, and I sure hope
>>> that RangeVarGetRelid does likewise.
>
>> It doesn't currently.  The now-useless lock doesn't really hurt
>> anything, aside from taking up space in the lock table.
>
> Well, there are corner cases where the object OID gets reused during
> the lifetime of the transaction, and then the lock *does* do something
> (and what it does would be bad).  But taking up extra space in the
> finite-size lock table is sufficient reason IMO to drop the lock.
> It's not like these are performance-critical code paths.

OK.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-11-09 16:12:55 new warning
Previous Message Nikhil Sontakke 2011-11-09 15:59:49 Re: Concurrent CREATE TABLE/DROP SCHEMA leaves inconsistent leftovers