|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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 https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|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|