Re: executor relation handling

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: executor relation handling
Date: 2018-09-30 22:54:27
Message-ID: CAKJS1f8tj9TLcLdpuff4G4Okmb2njevjnaZ6-Wjdr5bKv8U67Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1 October 2018 at 06:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It occurred to me that it'd be reasonable to insist that the caller
> holds a lock *at least as strong* as the one being recorded in the RTE,
> and that there's also been discussions about verifying that some lock
> is held when something like heap_open(foo, NoLock) is attempted.
> So I dusted off the part of 0001 that did that, producing the
> attached delta patch.

My imagination struggles to think of a case, but perhaps one day in
the future we might have a lock manager that coordinates locks on
multiple nodes. If so, is there not a risk that one day we might have
a lock level greater than AccessExclusiveLock, meaning the following
would get broken:

+ for (slockmode = lockmode + 1;
+ slockmode <= AccessExclusiveLock;
+ slockmode++)

For index strategies we do:

#define BTGreaterStrategyNumber 5

#define BTMaxStrategyNumber 5

So would it not be better to add the following to lockdefs.h?

#define MaxLockLevel 8

then use that to terminate the loop.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-09-30 23:09:43 Re: [HACKERS] kqueue
Previous Message David Fetter 2018-09-30 22:15:51 Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids