Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, 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: 2012-01-02 19:42:01
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJk99ogge2ouWh-8nYZz9Fjr7mhWgNLbR78pTo98vdC6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> 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,
>
>>> 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?
>
> Almost certainly yes.  For example, a catcache load may invoke catcache
> or relcache reload operations on its way to opening the table or index
> needed to fetch the desired row.

Ah, of course. I was thinking they would be rare by design.

> I think you can only safely do this if each caller has its own snapshot
> variable, a la SnapshotDirty, and that's going to be hugely more
> invasive.

OK, will look into it.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-02 19:46:48 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Noah Misch 2012-01-02 19:39:09 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe