| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Keyerror Smart <smartkeyerror(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17812: LOCK TABLE IN ACCESS EXCLUSIVE MODE with a view returns an empty tuple set |
| Date: | 2023-03-01 13:22:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbjXa2FxwDhikV1uZSZaQb53_CRCPNxs7-rtDYjwT6s5g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> > It is unclear to me whether you were instead talking about other sessions
> > dropping tables as another way of saying "ACCESS EXCLUSIVE" in which case
> > at what lock level should this anomaly go away, and does it?
>
> The originally-proposed tests seemed to all involve either TRUNCATE
> or DROP TABLE,
>
The only purpose of those was to produce a self-contained script that could
be run repeatedly. The commands were outside the transaction flow
demonstrating the issue.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-01 15:22:53 | Re: BUG #17812: LOCK TABLE IN ACCESS EXCLUSIVE MODE with a view returns an empty tuple set |
| Previous Message | Felipe Die | 2023-03-01 12:40:40 | Gpg error with Postgresql aarch64 repo - PG14 |