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
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 |