Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE
Date: 2018-08-16 02:08:05
Message-ID: 20180816020805.5fcdrhpgzarbzzp3@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-Aug-16, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:39:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The original patches would, I think, have been pretty scary to
> > back-patch, since the infrastructure didn't exist in older branches
> > and we were churning a fairly large amount of code. Now that most
> > places are fixed and things have had five years to bake, we could
> > conceivably back-patch the remaining fixes. However, I wonder if
> > we've really looked into how many instances of this problem remain.
> > If there's still ten more that we haven't bothered to fix,
> > back-patching one or two that we've gotten around to doing something
> > about doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
> If we are confident enough to say that all the holes have been patched,
> then we could only back-patch down to v11 in my opinion as REINDEX
> needed a change of behavior for the handling of shared catalog.

I searched for uses of RangeVarGetRelid, as well as heap_openrv and
relation_openrv, and there are a couple that looks very suspicious. I
don't think we can claim yet that all holes are fixed.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nico Williams 2018-08-16 02:57:46 Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
Previous Message Mark Dilger 2018-08-16 01:44:57 Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming