Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you

> The window for problems is pretty small: you have to be within a
> transaction (otherwise the StartTransaction will notice the sinval
> report), and your very first query after the other backend does
> ALTER TABLE has to reference the altered table. So I'm not sure
> this is worth worrying about. But perhaps the parser ought to obtain
> the weakest possible lock on each table referenced in a query before
> it does any looking at the attributes of the table. Comments?

Good question. How do other db's handle such a case? I hesitate to do
locking for parser lookups. Seems live more lock overhead.

> I believe these changes ought to be committed into REL6_5 as well,
> but it might be wise to test them a little more in current first.
> Or would people find it easier to test them against 6.5 databases?
> In that case maybe I should just commit them now...

Seems it should be 6.6 only. Too obscure a bug. Could introduce a bug.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026