| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
| Date: | 2011-06-07 14:20:13 |
| Message-ID: | 12719.1307456413@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> It makes me a bit uncomfortable to do catalog cache lookups while
> holding all the lwlocks. We've also already removed the reserved entry
> for scratch space while we do that - if a cache lookup errors out, we'll
> leave behind quite a mess. I guess it shouldn't fail, but it seems a bit
> fragile.
The above scares the heck out of me. If you don't believe that a
catcache lookup will ever fail, I will contract to break the patch.
You need to rearrange the code so that this is less fragile.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-07 14:24:12 | Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-06-07 13:24:11 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |