| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3 |
| Date: | 2024-06-13 14:49:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob_6FpJGkBRMOg+VrJ=eMHEyAC8-7HJvjMDShQd5Tt3Fw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 4:41 AM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Do you still find the code hard to maintain with v9?
I don't think it substantially changes my concerns as compared with
the earlier version.
> > but we're not similarly careful about other operations e.g.
> > ConstraintSetParentConstraint is called by DefineIndex which calls
> > table_open(childRelId, ...) first, but there's no logic in DefineIndex
> > to lock the constraint.
>
> table_open(childRelId, ...) would lock any "ALTER TABLE <childRelId> DROP CONSTRAINT"
> already. Not sure I understand your concern here.
I believe this is not true. This would take a lock on the table, not
the constraint itself.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-13 15:19:47 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-06-13 14:40:20 | Re: MultiXactMemberFreezeThreshold can make autovacuum *less* aggressive |