Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2009-12-19 02:51:52
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Part of what I'm confused about (and what I think should be documented
> in a comment somewhere) is why we're using MVCC visibility in some
> places but not others.  In particular, there seem to be some bits of
> the comment that imply that we do this for read but not for write,
> which seems really strange.  It may or may not actually be strange,
> but I don't understand it.

It is supposed to depend on whether you opened the blob for read only
or for read write.  Please do not tell me that this patch broke that;
because if it did it broke pg_dump.

This behavior is documented at least here:

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: suzhiyangDate: 2009-12-19 02:58:21
Subject: About "Allow VIEW/RULE recompilation when the underlying tables change"
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-19 02:48:15
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group