| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2011-06-17 21:17:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1308345410-sup-542@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie jun 17 17:08:25 -0400 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Hmm, would there be a problem if a scan on catalog A yields results from
> > supposedly-running transaction X but another scan on catalog B yields
> > result from transaction Y? (X != Y) For example, a scan on pg_class
> > says that there are N triggers but scanning pg_trigger says N-1?
>
> Yeah, I came to that same conclusion downthread.
Something is seriously wrong with my email :-(
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-17 21:25:01 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-17 21:08:25 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |