From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: problems with table corruption continued |
Date: | 2001-12-19 03:56:40 |
Message-ID: | 3C200FF8.6D344DC@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > The ri_triggers code has a lot of places that open things NoLock,
> > but it only looks into the relcache entry and doesn't try to scan
> > the relation. Nonetheless that code bothers me; we could be using
> > an obsolete relcache entry if someone has just committed an ALTER
> > TABLE on the relation. Some of the cases may be safe because a lock
> > is held higher up (eg, on the table from which the trigger was fired)
> > but I doubt they all are.
>
> Probably not, since it looks like that's being done for the other table of
> the constraint (not the one on which the trigger was fired).
If a lock is held already, acquiring an AccessShareLock
would cause no addtional conflict. I don't see any reason
to walk a tightrope with NoLock intentionally.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-19 04:06:34 | Re: checkpoint reliability |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-12-19 03:47:18 | Re: Thoughts on the location of configuration files |