From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Keyerror Smart <smartkeyerror(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17812: LOCK TABLE IN ACCESS EXCLUSIVE MODE with a view returns an empty tuple set |
Date: | 2023-03-01 06:53:22 |
Message-ID: | 1328697.1677653602@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Session 4:
> create table tbl2 as select * from view1;
> SELECT 0
> Why is it OK for session 4 to be different here?
Maybe it isn't. The code flow for CREATE TABLE AS is a bit weird
IIRC, and maybe it's missing a step where we should update the
active snapshot.
> It is unclear to me whether you were instead talking about other sessions
> dropping tables as another way of saying "ACCESS EXCLUSIVE" in which case
> at what lock level should this anomaly go away, and does it?
The originally-proposed tests seemed to all involve either TRUNCATE
or DROP TABLE, which are outside what I consider to be our MVCC
guarantees. Your example here does seem a bit strange though.
Views generally ought not have different semantics from writing
out the view query in-line.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-03-01 06:59:36 | Re: Memory leakage in libpq valgrind test |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-03-01 06:44:25 | Re: Clause accidentally pushed down ( Possible bug in Making Vars outer-join aware) |