From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "mark" <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'bakkiya'" <bakkiya(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Could not open relation with OID (table partitioning issue?) |
Date: | 2010-11-22 15:09:46 |
Message-ID: | 26145.1290438586@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
"mark" <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't know if this is a bug and if so, if it fixed in the most current
> patch. (I don't see anything in the release notes that make think so though
> however).
At least one reason for this type of problem was fixed in 8.4.
commit d4a363cdf2b426bbf6c401543b8286ad86ca9bd5
Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Date: Tue May 12 03:11:02 2009 +0000
Modify find_inheritance_children() and find_all_inheritors() to add the
ability to lock relations as they scan pg_inherits, and to ignore any
relations that have disappeared by the time we get lock on them. This
makes uses of these functions safe against concurrent DROP operations
on child tables: we will effectively ignore any just-dropped child,
rather than possibly throwing an error as in recent bug report from
Thomas Johansson (and similar past complaints). The behavior should
not change otherwise, since the code was acquiring those same locks
anyway, just a little bit later.
An exception is LockTableCommand(), which is still behaving unsafely;
but that seems to require some more discussion before we change it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Broersma | 2010-11-22 17:20:00 | Re: Change Data Capture |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-22 14:43:07 | Re: Null values detected as 0 value |