| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |
| Date: | 2015-08-25 18:33:25 |
| Message-ID: | 15775.1440527605@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-08-25 14:12:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How would they have done that without major code surgery? We don't have
>> any hooks or function pointers involved in the users of resowner.h.
>> Certainly locks would not be getting passed to a nonstandard resowner.
> CurrentResourceOwner = myresowner;
> /* do some op */
Yeah, but so what? GrantLockLocal does not contain any way that external
code could change the way that a new lock is recorded.
(IOW, yeah, certainly third-party code could create a new *instance* of
the ResourceOwner data structure, but they would not have any knowledge of
what's inside unless they had hacked the core code.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-25 18:38:07 | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-08-25 18:28:33 | Re: pg_controldata output alignment regression |