| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |