From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
Date: | 2012-01-03 01:18:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+u0Dy-EcLUGgVsyjQLA6K-1Wpe+g9eUfoEMCGirYhnng@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at
>>> the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow is passed as the scan's
>>> snapshot. It's fairly brief but seems to do the trick.
>>
>> That's a neat trick. However, if you start a new SnapshotNow scan while one is
>> ongoing, the primordial scan's snapshot will change mid-stream.
>
> Do we ever do that? (and if so, Why?!? or perhaps just Where?)
Just for the record, yes we do run multiple catalog scans in some
parts of the code.
So I can see how we might trigger 4 nested scans, using cache
replacement while scanning, so best assume more, with no guarantee of
them being neatly stacked for pop/push type access.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2012-01-03 04:40:38 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-03 00:12:21 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |