From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |
Date: | 2013-01-24 09:35:41 |
Message-ID: | m2a9ryc49e.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Or maybe we should just silently ignore failures to look up the event
> trigger. That might be better, because the DBA could always do:
>
> DROP FUNCTION myeventtrgfn() CASCADE;
>
> ...and it would be undesirable for other sessions to error out in that
> case due to SnapshotNow effects.
What about taking a lock on the functions we decide we will need to be
running, maybe a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock, so that the function can not
disappear under us from concurrent activity?
Note to self, most probably using:
LockRelationOid(fnoid, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
After all, we might be right not to optimize for DDL concurrency…
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Xi Wang | 2013-01-24 09:36:42 | [PATCH 1/3] Fix x + y < x overflow checks |
Previous Message | Xi Wang | 2013-01-24 09:33:01 | [PATCH 0/3] Work around icc miscompilation |