From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] ALTER TABLE |
Date: | 2000-08-03 20:08:56 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.10.10008031255030.33478-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Accordingly, this patch is not needed anymore in current sources, though
> it'd still be the most convenient fix for 7.0.* series if anyone is
> concerned enough to apply it.
Yeah, actually, a friend of mine ran into this recently with incorrect
create constraint trigger statements so I already was going to send a
patch to him, then it got mentioned on -bugs.
> A possibly more important issue: why are the RI triggers opening the
> referenced rel with NoLock anyway? Doesn't that leave you open to
> someone deleting the referenced rel out from under you while you are
> working with it? Seems like at minimum you should grab AccessShareLock.
That's a good point. To be honest, I don't really know why it's not
grabbing a lock (Jan?). As a general newbie question for such things,
what happens to your relation pointer if it were to be deleted out
from under? I figure that if it gets to the actual query, it will fail
(unless someone were to create a table with that name in the meantime -
ouch...)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paulo Roberto Siqueira | 2000-08-04 01:05:28 | pg_dump problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-03 19:33:37 | Re: ALTER TABLE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-03 20:12:52 | Re: comparing rows |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-03 19:57:47 | Re: Toasting more system-table columns |