Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?
Date: 2001-01-06 00:33:34
Message-ID: 3A5667DE.7C793339@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >>>> It seems that init_irels() should be called after
> >>>> InitializeTransactionSystem() was called.
> >>
> >> Can we just swap the order of the RelationCacheInitialize() and
> >> InitializeTransactionSystem() calls in InitPostgres?  If that
> >> works, I'd have no objection.
> 
> > It doesn't work. InitializeTransactionSystem() requires
> > pg_log/pg_variable relations which are already built in
> > RelationCacheInitialize().
> 
> OK.  Second proposal: do the init_irels() call in
> RelationCacheInitializePhase2().  I've just looked through the
> other stuff that's done in between, and I don't think any of it
> needs valid relcache entries.
> 

Oops, I neglected to reply "agreed", sorry.
It would be much safer for init_irels() to be called
in a proper transaction than the current implementation.

Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-06 00:47:39
Subject: Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?
Previous:From: Alfonso PenicheDate: 2001-01-06 00:18:48
Subject: ODBC 7.x for windows

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group