Re: WARNING: missing lock on database "postgres" (OID 5) @ TID (0,4)

From: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: missing lock on database "postgres" (OID 5) @ TID (0,4)
Date: 2024-12-17 05:00:10
Message-ID: CALdSSPjcUZ8XG4Vk5A+dGGYGi5WCfcPyzowYXiQ5Lk_BhzGOcg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 04:43, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:

> The reason I said databases.sql for the test is that CREATE DATABASE is
> expensive. We currently have just one successful CREATE DATABASE in the
> src/test/regress suite, and we shouldn't add more that reasonably could
> instead harness the existing one. Would you do it that way?

Sure, my bad, I missed this part of your message. PFA v5 with
database.sql changes.

--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke

Attachment Content-Type Size
v5-0001-When-making-dependency-changes-lock-the-tuple-for.patch application/octet-stream 5.6 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-12-17 05:15:06 Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay
Previous Message Sami Imseih 2024-12-17 04:47:05 Re: improve EXPLAIN for wide tables