From: | Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Forbid to DROP temp tables of other sessions |
Date: | 2025-03-17 05:11:46 |
Message-ID: | CAJDiXggEU0HQFDLFQOashtgwuiODW_+ZoViM1rn=P3DMraTRAg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 7:53 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I noticed that the following Andrey's comment regarding the isolation
> test from [1] and Andres's comment from [2] are pending. I'm changing
> the commitfest entry to Waiting on Author, please provide an updated
> patch and update it to Needs review.
Thanks for reading it.
I saw [2] and introduced a possible solution in my last letter. In
short : we can have a GUC variable that will permit superuser to drop
temp tables of other sessions. Thus, we have a single location in code
that will check whether we can perform operations with other temp
tables. As far as I understand, this is exactly what Andres wrote
about.
Also, it is difficult for me to express my opinion on [1] at the
moment. I can say for sure that the tests will change when we agree on
the behavior of the code. Therefore, I suggest postponing the
resolution of this issue.
> I suggest adding a GUC that will allow superuser to do this
Waiting for your feedback on this issue :)
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-03-17 05:41:39 | Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-03-17 05:11:30 | Re: More Perl cleanups |