Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>> In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.

> Yeah.  I think the reason we haven't seen any complaints about this
> before is that the worst-case scenario is that a comment for a dropped
> database object eventually becomes associated with a new database
> object.

Well, in general there is very little DDL locking for any object type
other than tables.  I think the original rationale for that was that
most other object types are defined by single catalog entries, so that
attempts to update/delete the object would naturally block on changing
its tuple anyway.  But between comments and pg_depend entries that seems
not particularly true anymore.

IIRC there is now some attempt to lock objects of all types during
DROP.  Maybe the COMMENT code could acquire a conflicting lock.

>> For example, we need to acquire a lock on the pg_type catalog when we
>> try to comment on any type object. Perhaps, I think LockRelationOid()
>> should be injected at head of the CommentType() in this case.
>> 
>> Any comments?

> A more fine-grained lock would be preferable,

s/preferable/essential/.  This cure would be *far* worse than the
disease.  Can you say "deadlock"?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Bug? Concurrent COMMENT ON and DROP object at 2010-07-06 13:45:10 from Robert Haas

Responses

• Re: Bug? Concurrent COMMENT ON and DROP object at 2010-07-06 23:46:05 from KaiGai Kohei

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-07-06 14:42:16
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2010-07-06 14:21:06
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.