From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3 |
Date: | 2024-07-01 09:39:17 |
Message-ID: | ZoJ5RVtMziIa3TQp@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:24:41AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 01:22:43PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Another thought for the RelationRelationId class case: we could check if there
> > is a lock first and if there is no lock then acquire one. That way that would
> > ensure the relation is always locked (so no "risk" anymore), but OTOH it may
> > add "unecessary" locking (see 2. mentioned previously).
>
> Please find attached v12 implementing this idea for the RelationRelationId class
> case. As mentioned, it may add unnecessary locking for 2. but I think that's
> worth it to ensure that we are always on the safe side of thing. This idea is
> implemented in LockNotPinnedObjectById().
Please find attached v13, mandatory rebase due to 0cecc908e97. In passing, make
use of CheckRelationOidLockedByMe() added in 0cecc908e97.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v13-0001-Avoid-orphaned-objects-dependencies.patch | text/x-diff | 100.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-07-01 09:41:31 | Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-07-01 09:20:19 | Re: Avoid incomplete copy string (src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c) |