| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrey Klychkov <aaklychkov(at)mail(dot)ru>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |
| Date: | 2018-08-02 20:02:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20180802200251.ekgtnkqpgfsmfmdf@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-08-02 15:57:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> Right. If nobody sees a reason not to change that, I think we should.
> >> It would make the behavior more predictable with, I hope, no real
> >> loss.
> >
> > What precisely are you proposing?
>
> Inserting AcceptInvalidationMessages() in some location that
> guarantees it will be executed at least once per SQL statement. I
> tentatively propose the beginning of parse_analyze(), but I am open to
> suggestions.
I'm inclined to think that that doesn't really actually solve anything,
but makes locking issues harder to find, because the window is smaller,
but decidedly non-zero. Can you describe why this'd make things more
"predictable" precisely?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2018-08-02 20:05:34 | Re: doc - add missing documentation for "acldefault" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-02 19:57:13 | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |