| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | cg(at)osss(dot)net, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: BUG #11638: Transaction safety fails when constraints are dropped and analyze is done | 
| Date: | 2014-10-15 06:02:43 | 
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTsZUnDNYgLZ8OO5T4rQY+=XSe7uomiv=OVQnJvVzzHJg@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs | 
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure which danger you're seeing here. Imo we need to choose
> between heap_inplace/heap_update for VACUUM/ANALYZE because one is
> allowed to run in a transaction, and the other is not. It simply *can't*
> be safe for ANALYZE to set things like relhastriggers = false using
> heap_inplace().
> There's problems with both it rolling back and thus undoing the action
> that allowed relhastriggers = false to be set and scenarios where it's
> not ok that other backends can see that value before the transaction
> committed.
Hm, I was wondering about the potential effects of VACUUM FULL or VACUUM
ANALYZE, but as they cannot run in a tx block... Btw, I have just put my
hands on this code and made the attached to make vac_update_relstats able
to do a transactional update. It looks to work fine with only a check on
the flags of vacuum statement.
Regards,
-- 
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size | 
|---|---|---|
| 20141015_analyze_transactional.patch | text/x-diff | 3.1 KB | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-15 06:18:15 | Re: BUG #11638: Transaction safety fails when constraints are dropped and analyze is done | 
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-15 05:12:54 | Re: BUG #11638: Transaction safety fails when constraints are dropped and analyze is done |